Thursday, January 30, 2014

Recap for 1/31 - Ideas Matter

            This week we examined the ideas of Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus, as well as the capitalist views of David Ricardo. At the end of class on Wednesday Dr. Gannon concluded by discussing that ideas matter. The ideology of capitalism emerged during a time that the world was changing and people began to question feudalism and other dominant ways of thought. People made the decision to reject traditionalist views and create their own enlightened ideas, like Smith, Malthus, and Ricardo.
            As we learned last week and at the beginning of this week, Adam Smith founded the basic ideals of capitalism with concepts like self-interest, division of labor, and limited government involvement. Smith’s writings of capitalism spread across Europe, and his ideas of a prosperous economic system changed the manner in which people viewed how they should live their lives. Smith’s simple ideas of a new economic system changed the world forever because people realized the opportunities and good that capitalism could bring to all. Smith’s ideas mattered because people realized that the old way of life was holding them back and working against them. It brought about an age of revolution.
            Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo worked off of Smith’s basic ideas of capitalism and brought about their own concepts like human nature and class conflict. Hunt and Lautzenheiser explained in History of Economic Thought that “Ricardo saw society from the labor theory or production perspective. He focused sharply on the two major class conflicts of his era, and, in his theory, the interests of workers and capitalists were opposed. ‘If wages should rise,’ he repeatedly stated, ‘then… profits would necessarily fail’” (Hunt 116). Smith’s idea of capitalism focused on the good for all, but human nature, like greed and love of power, caused issues like class conflict. As Ricardo stated in the quote, if wages were to be higher like Smith supported, then profits would be lower and the business would be worse off.
            At the end of class on Wednesday we discussed the potato famine in Ireland. More than one million men, women, and children died of starvation due to the famine and their British counterparts had the opportunity to help those that were dying and supply them with food and services. The idea that government should never interfere with the capitalist market, also known as laissez-faire, stopped the British government from supplying the necessary food to help the starving. The British government believed that if they interfered with the market that there would be severe consequences to their local economy and even global ramifications. The idea that there should be limited to no government intervention in the market correlated to the death of more than one million Irishmen. This is evidence that a single idea matters because, unfortunately, sometimes it can mean life or death. Adam Smith believed that capitalism was good for all without examining the aspect of human nature. Malthus believed that human nature was darker than Smith would have believed. The Irish potato famine is the perfect example of how human nature should be considered in real life application. Often we like to think of capitalism as the perfect economic system with little-to-no downsides, but it’s important that we realize that Smith’s idea of capitalism is difficult to obtain. Human aspects, like greed and the love of power corrupt the system and create results like the deaths from the potato famine.
            In today’s world, we know that capitalism creates what we call winners and losers. The world has internalized the idea that it’s okay for there to be winners, the wealthy, and losers, the poor. This Darwin-like way of thinking has changed capitalism from Adam Smith’s, and even Malthus’ and Ricardo’s, original intents. The theme of this post is that ideas matter, and the idea that it’s okay to have winners and losers through capitalism has created some inequalities in today’s society. This idea matters because some children wake up in the morning to a comfortable, safe way of life while others wake up hungry and ill-fated. Smith’s idea of capitalism was about opportunity and efficiency so that all of society could benefit. Do you see his ideas in work today? Or have they been changed with time?

5 comments:

  1. I still think there is a lot of the same ideas still today. People still look down on the poor, but in reality there are dfferent reasons why people do not work. People are beat down by other people, abusive people blame others for their own shortcomings. If someone internalizes the condemnations from someone else they will start to believe them true; it
    can paralyze someone emotionally, and they become handicapped by their pain and cannot hold down a job. This is one example but the point is their are reasons for people's circumstances.
    Another trend is union busting, certain people do not want an organization protecting the rights of employees. I agree there are problems with unions but those things could be adressed within that organization, the need for unions are still needed or the gap between laborers and employers will grt bigger. The wages rose because of collective bargaining, and they are for the ordinary worker. History seems to repeat itself, until a better way is found.

    ReplyDelete
  2. After reading this post I think a lot finally clicked for me. Specifically with seeing this whole time period as a revolution, which is exactly what Appleby says it was. But in many ways I see that she was right. As you mentioned times were changing, people were accepting new ideas, and at this point more than willing to break away from tradition, and the different things that had been established for generations. It was a sort of revolution that didn't involve bloodshed. You have the poorer people in society embracing some of these ideas, and in many ways rising up, to overthrow the old ways and systems that caused them to be oppressed, and fighting a new system that would give them a chance to advance in the world. But then as is evident these ideas and this new way of thinking didn't just stay in one place, but spread all around the world. It was constantly in a stage of development, in which people were trying to better understand how it operated as we discovered this week, by reading Ricardo, Smith, and Malthus.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes I do believe that some of the same ideas still are around today. Winners and losers are still the rich and the poor. The rich try as much as possible to stay rich and most would rather pay lower wages to continue to dominate. Wal-Mart is a company that comes into mind. They barely give workers full time jobs, because they don't want to give them benefits. Consequently Wal-Mart is able to give their consumers great prices and continue to dominate.
    Today I think the US would treat something like the Irish potato famine a bit different.
    As we discussed in class Smith's view of human nature was more optimistic than Malthus. Malthus believed human nature would keep the economy down. He believe that if you paid a higher wage to the poor they would just have more children or waste it on vices and continue to live only in subsistence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I still think that see the idea in work today, it changed just a bit, our leaders got more greedy, and the people in charge of some of the larger corporations don't not care about anyone but their selves, , and as mentioned above, I think the United States today would have helped the irish people like we do to every other country that needs help. Today world world be so much better if the rich learn to play fair in the park and s share some of their wealth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I also think that some of those ideas are around today. The rich are still considered winners and the poor are still considered losers. I think it is good that the post mentioned the downsides of capitalism because we are often taught and told that capitalism is good and or is positive. It is also true that Smith's views of human nature were way more optimistic than Malthus's views on human nature.

    ReplyDelete