Category Archives: Philosophical and speculative

When Adam Smith wrote on “the wealth of nations” what did he mean by “wealth”?

Posted on by
Reply

This was the initial query sent to the Societies for the History of Economic Thought discussion thread on June 16.

Dear colleagues,
I’m trying to trace the source of translating “economics” as “the science of wealth” (and sometimes “the science of the wealth of nations”) in late nineteenth-century Ottoman-Turkish. Ottoman economists most probably rendered it from French (“la science de la richesse”), from popular sources preceding the 1860s. I could find expressions like “l’économie politique est la science de la richesse” in many economic texts from the era, but I’m trying to understand how common it was to use “la science de la richesse” instead of or interchangeably with “l’économie politique” referring to the discipline itself.

What has followed has been a brief discourse that amounts to the statement from one of the French correspondents that “it is very easy to show that ‘science de la richesse‘ was a synonym of political economy in the first half of 19th century, not from ‘popular sources’ but just to explain the title of books.” I have therefore sent my own brief contribution along, because I do think that words make a very great deal of difference in how we think and what we are able to understand.

It has seemed to me for a while that the title, The Wealth of Nations, is an eighteenth century use of words and is somewhat misleading as to the point that Smith was making. I have tried to find a modern phrase that would capture what he meant, and the closest I have been able to come to is: The Prosperity of Nations. “Wealth” has a kind of treasure chest notion to it (which it may not have had back then), and the word “wealthy” is tied to personal riches, which is not at all, I think, what Smith was trying to get at. So when I read that the French for “wealth” is “richesse“, or that my google translator turns “The Wealth of Nations” into “la richesse des nations“, I really do therefore wonder how much has been lost in translation. Because when I translate the English word “riches” into French, it gives me “richesse” once again. The alternative French to English of “richesse” are “wealth”, “richness”, “riches”, “rich” and “affluent”. And for the French word “riche” we get these English translations: “rich”, “wealthy”, “affluent”, “opulent”, “splendid” and “luxurious”. Each of them seem totally inadequate to making sense of what Smith had in mind or what the book is about. This seems to me more than just a curiosity.

This is no laughing matter

Posted on by
Reply

Way back then, when I was one of those university students, a story like this couldn’t even be printed in any newspaper, anywhere in the world. This would have been full-on pornography. Now this is about a poll published in The Washington Post:

On Monday I detailed how the Washington Post’s survey claiming that one in five women have been sexually assaulted in college is deeply flawed. But there was an aspect of the survey I didn’t get to, one that does not bode well for the future of relationships among students.

Deep in the poll, respondents were asked to decide whether a particular action “establishes consent for more sexual activity.” They were given five examples. The only example that fell clearly in the “yes” category among men and women respondents was “nods in agreement.”

To the example “takes off their own clothes,” men and women were split on whether that established consent. Fifty percent of men said “yes,” while 45 percent said “no.” For women, 52 percent said “no,” while 44 percent said “yes.”

For the example “gets a condom,” men and women agreed that it does not establish consent for further action, although the margin was wider for women than for men.

As for the examples “engages in foreplay such as kissing or touching” and “does not say ‘no,’” the vast majority of men and women said neither action established consent.

This finding (though, to be clear, I question the validity of the whole document) indicates that the future of sex must contain a strict format for establishing consent. Nothing except a question-and-answer session will do, as actions such as foreplay and getting a condom no longer count.

No one actually has sex this way, as I argued in a recent article about attempts by two law professors to criminalize sexual contact that doesn’t follow the Q-and-A format.

I’d like to know the back stories on those responses. Did men say those actions didn’t establish consent because they fear a campus hearing wouldn’t accept them? Or are the behavior police starting to get through?

Do such people get married? What do they do then?

The US no longer united

Posted on by
Reply

From Drudge today, tucked away in a corner at the bottom right:

BUCHANAN: Is Third World America Inevitable?
10% of Lewiston, Maine now Somali refugees…
Feds free rapists, child molester and kidnappers…
More than 100 murders attributed to illegals released…
NYC Dems seek to boost immigrant voter registration…
60% of New Yorkers DO NOT speak English at home…
Supreme Court says deportation deadlines can be extended…

You can’t miss it, but for some reason, no one dares to point it out.

Do we really want a transfer of power from the parliament to the courts?

Posted on by
Reply

The US is moving into failed-state territory. There is still lots to admire, but as time goes on, there is fewer and fewer of its social institutions that I think are of much use to the rest of us. It is an example in so many ways of what not to do. Its big cities, now overwhelmingly run by Democrats, are a lesson in wreckage. Outside of new technologies, there is so little to learn from the US at the moment that it is frightening how such descent can occur during the space of less than a single lifetime.

There is an article on the op ed page of The Australian today, Bills of rights are overrated, like the Magna Carta, written by Michael Sexton SC, described as “the author of several books on Australian history and politics”. If the rest of what he’s written is as good as this, I will have to read the lot. The kind of sentimentality over judicial concern for our freedoms is all very nice, until you watch how quickly every judicial system buckles the minute some totalitarian regime takes over. Here he is looking at whether Australia needs a Bill of Rights:

It would be easy to say a bill of rights is a lawyers’ picnic and that is why it is strongly promoted by some sections of the legal profession. While it is true, however, that a bill of rights inevitably leads to increased litigation, most human rights lawyers in Australia are funded by the taxpayer, either as academics or in community law centres, so their interests in this area are not directly financial.

The real problem with this group is that they welcome a transfer of power from the parliament to the courts and do not see this as anti-democratic. This in turn is because they tend to see every problem as having a legal solution, even if they are fundamentally economic, social or political questions. These kinds of issues are not changed into legal questions by being given to courts. All that happens is that courts are then required to decide economic, social and political questions.

The approach of human rights lawyers is demonstrated by the litigation in Australia concerning persons who arrive in the country without going through the normal immigration procedures. Some of these persons may be the victims of political persecution but most are potential economic migrants.

There have been numerous challenges to federal legislation in this area over recent years, with many of the cases going all the way to the High Court. The lawyers mounting these challenges do not accept that immigration control is a political decision for the government of the day and they rely in part on international law to say no Australian government can exercise complete control over entry to the country.

Better what we have than leave such decisions to Her Honour Justice Triggs.

“It is never wrong to do the right thing”

Posted on by
Reply

This is picked up at Powerline which is from a newly published book of Commencement Addresses by Conservatives. The one that Scott Johnson has reprinted is one given in 2008 by Justice Clarence Thomas. It really is worth your time, but I have selected this passage because it has its own meaning to me:

Take a few minutes today to say thank you to anyone who helped you get here. Then try to live your lives as if you really appreciate their help and the good it has done in your lives. Earn the right to have been helped by the way you live your lives.

Next, remember that life is not easy for any of us. It will probably not be fair, and it certainly is not all about you. The gray hair and wrinkles you see on older people have been earned the hard way, by living and dealing with the challenges of life. When I was a young adult and labored under the delusion of my own omniscience, I thought I knew more than I actually did. That is a function of youth.

With the wisdom that only comes with the passage of years, the older folks warned me presciently and ominously, “Son, you just live long enough and you’ll see.” They were right; oh, so right. Life is humbling and can be hard, very hard. It is a series of decisions, some harder than others, some good and, unfortunately, too many of them bad. It will be up to each of you to make as many good decisions as possible and to limit the bad ones, then to learn from all of them. But I will urge you to resist when those around you insist on making the bad decisions. Being accepted or popular with those doing wrong is an awful Faustian bargain and, as with all Faustian bargains, not worth it. It is never wrong to do the right thing. It may be hard, but never wrong.

What genuine problem has a party of the left actually solved anytime in the last forty years?

Posted on by
Reply

Parties of the left never solve any actual problems, they only make existing problems worse and create new ones along the way.

Our economies are swimming in debt and deficits, with regulatory overload that makes recovery in any meaningful way almost an impossibility. We had a budget in surplus and an economy with zero debt. Then we elected Labor and we will never achieve any such thing again.

The boats were stopped not once but twice. It was first done by John Howard, and has been done again by Tony Abbott. In between, R-G-R allowed thousands to arrive, with the well understood aim of creating a voting class that would give them success at subsequent elections, irrespective of the harm done to the country by allowing illegal migrants to flood our shores.

If there are industrial relations problems, you can solve them either by resisting union demands or by conceding them. The first option will give you a stronger economy, the second a two-tier system in which union members and their leaders do well while others do worse.

But the parties of the left are good at finding solutions for things that are not a problem at all. Take the prime example, global warming. The planet isn’t even warming for any reason whatsoever, never mind because of the use of carbon-based fuels. But the left have created a crisis atmosphere, and have stepped forward with solutions that wouldn’t even make sense if there actually was such a problem, but which allows plenty of money to be distributed to their crony-capitalist friends while burdening the economy with taxes and imposts that are certain to make us less well off but will give the government more money to spread around at its own discretion.

There are lots of such fake problems invented by the left and promoted through the media (i.e. by the marketing arm of the left) to become controversial issue in immediate need of solution. Conservatives then have the choice of doing nothing since they think there is nothing to be done, and therefore end up hammered by the press and the left for not taking such problems seriously. Or they do take these up and legitimise the issue while offering solutions that are intended to be less damaging than those offered by the left.

There was a time when the left tried to solve genuine problems and were legitimate parties of ideas. Almost invariably bad ideas, which generally have left a trail of damage, but at least they were honestly conceived. They no longer have any ideas at all, other than the usual plunder and distribute to the mendicant classes which they have created and who will most reliably vote for them.

I’m not sure there is any solution for conservatives than to try to take these people on by pointing out that they do an immense amount of harm, almost never do good, and our problems are invariably made worse every time a government of the left is elected. Except, even if you wished to undertake such a campaign, how would you get the message out?

“Science has taken a turn towards darkness”

Posted on by
Reply

These are quotes from the editor of The Lancet, the premier medical journal in the world, reported by Steve Hayward at Powerline. My link is through Hayward’s post, but any of us who have dealt with global vermin will know what he means. And that is not where it stops.

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted . . . this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. . .

The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. . . nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system. [Emphasis added.]

Scientific research in some areas has become like the media. There are only certain conclusions you are allowed to reach and if you want that next grant, or that next publication, you had better make sure you are well within the acceptable range of opinion.

And here is the direct link to the editor of The Lancet where you can read his comments in full.