Reddit reviews The Wealth of Nations

Here you go!

>Sure, except there is not a finite level of wealth in the real world, nor is wealth gained by arbitrary or random means.

Not sure what world you are living in, but in mine there is a finite amount of food, land, money, gold, trees, oil, iphones. How do you think the laws of supply and demand work?

Wealth is not gained by arbitrary or random means? Really? Lets tell the kid who was born in Congo that he really failed at picking his parents. Or an example closer to home - when you wanted to start your first telecommunications company, did your parents put up a few million bucks in venture capital for you as happened with Lachlan Murdoch and James Packer?

Ohhh, I see where you're going with this. In Libertarian fantasy land wealth is allocated by hard work, and chance plays a very marginal role. Capital and inherited wealth pale against the billion dollar earning power of a hard working primary school teacher! In reality, labour does not out earn capital.

>Why are countries with free markets so wealthy? Why do countries like HK, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan have such a strong middle class?

Because for one, they aren't free market economies. Most of their growth was led by their governments. Singapore is basically a technocratic dictatorship ruled by one family - perhaps you're familiar with Singtel, owner of Optus or Singapore Airlines, both controlled by government investment corporation Temasek?

Korea is run by an oligarchy of family owned conglomerates called "Chaebols" - Samsung, LG, Hyundai, all of the drivers of their economy are too-big-to-fail and heavily state supported.

Hong Kong and Taiwan were able to profit from proximity and cultural ties to China to build their economies.

And China's decades long double digit economic growth model wasn't thanks to the free market either. They call it "State Capitalism", which is a fancy way of saying fascism.

>Again, evidence and history does not support your claims.

Yes it does. Most industries in market economies start out fiercely competitive but ultimately merge into an oligarchy if not strictly regulated by the government.

6 companies control 90% of the USA's media, down from 50 in 1983.

Since 1990, 37 of the USA's big banks merged to become just 4 too-big-to-fail megabanks.

This process happens even faster in a small economy like Australia's, where we have been stuck with an cartel of 4 too-big-to-fail banks for a very long time now.

You need to acquaint yourself with the basics of how markets work, and how unregulated markets inevitably become monopolistic. You can start with "Wealth of Nations" by the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith.

Atlas Shrugged- Ayn Rand

New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America- Burton Folsom

Wealth of Nations- Adam Smith

When a job is automated it creates consumer and producer surplus. That is distributed throughout the economy and increases the disposable income or living standard. As a result a new industry emerges, or another expands. These things happen on a macro-scale so it is not one job, it is millions simultaneously. The market is driven by incentives, so capital will seek out it's most efficient use (as opposed to government where the capital owners are not the ones deciding its use and seek out the post politically effective use.) A market is smarter than the smartest person in it, that's how prices and wages are determined. If you've watched Who Wants To Be a Millionaire you'll know that "ask the audience" is always more accurate than when the contestant calls a friend who is an expert in the area.

The standard of living has increased over time, despite technological advancements that reduce the amount of labor is a particular industry. Why would we expect it to be any different now, automation is a new technology. Once upon a time we were all farmers, but technology has allowed us to do many other things.

There are certainly people who are disable and for other reasons unable to provide for themselves, this is what charity is for. If people are not willing to voluntarily give their money to provide for the needy, I fail to see the morality of the government forcing them to through taxation.

If you are generally interested and not just trying to argue I might suggest you read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. He was a pioneer of classical economics and describes how market forces provide the best outcome for society better than I could.

(not targeting my reply to you /u/Qwaybin)

That's not capitalism though, that's corporativism or neoliberalism, capitalism actually needs laws to ensure the market is free, in fact, anyone that tells you that less regulation is better for the (free) market is either lying or an idiot.

Just go and read the book dammit it doesn't say what the republicans insist it says.

>>Sure, except there is not a finite level of wealth in the real world, nor is wealth gained by arbitrary or random means.

>Not sure what world you are living in, but in mine there is a finite amount of food, land, money, gold, trees, oil, iphones. How do you think the laws of supply and demand work?

In a closed system, with zero economic growth, I would agree with you. But the fact is, we are nowhere close to fulfilling our potential in wealth and technology. When somebody makes money, it's because they have found a way to generate wealth, not because they steal it from anyone else.

>Wealth is not gained by arbitrary or random means? Really? Lets tell the kid who was born in Congo that he really failed at picking his parents. Or an example closer to home - when you wanted to start your first telecommunications company, did your parents put up a few million bucks in venture capital for you as happened with Lachlan Murdoch and James Packer?

The overwhelming majority of millionaires today came from middle-class backgrounds. What's the point of bringing strawmen arguments into this? Being born rich helps, but not as much as you might think. Rarely does wealth last longer than 3 generations - a phenomenon known as "rags to riches to rags". As for luck, working hard helps. From WSJ:

" His study found that people who earn less than $20,000 a year, for instance, spent more than a third of their time in passive leisure, like kicking back and watching TV. By contrast, those earning more than $100,000 a year (more affluent than wealthy), spent less than a fifth of their time in passive leisure."

>Ohhh, I see where you're going with this. In Libertarian fantasy land wealth is allocated by hard work, and chance plays a very marginal role. Capital and inherited wealth pale against the billion dollar earning power of a hard working primary school teacher! In reality, labour does not out earn capital.

Again, most wealthy people came from middle class backgrounds. Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, to back up your claim that a majority of rich people are there because they inherited their wealth?

>>Why are countries with free markets so wealthy? Why do countries like HK, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan have such a strong middle class?

>Because for one, they aren't free market economies. Most of their growth was led by their governments. Singapore is basically a technocratic dictatorship ruled by one family - perhaps you're familiar with Singtel, owner of Optus or Singapore Airlines, both controlled by government investment corporation Temasek?

I agree that Singapore is an autocracy, but it doesn't mean it's not free market. Historically these countries have had the lowest government intervention of any. To claim that they're not free markets are laughable. For christ's sake, for most of Hong Kong's history it never had any public education, healthcare, or transport. It doesn't even have a central bank! Seriously man, I'm more than happy to have a debate with you, but let's at least agree on the obvious - the Asian tigers were (and still are) most definitely free markets.

>Korea is run by an oligarchy of family owned conglomerates called "Chaebols" - Samsung, LG, Hyundai, all of the drivers of their economy are too-big-to-fail and heavily state supported.

This is anecdotal evidence. I'm not claiming these areas have no government interference, merely that they are free markets. The best measure of this is their government spending as a % of GDP.

>Hong Kong and Taiwan were able to profit from proximity and cultural ties to China to build their economies.

Since when does geographical proximity guarantee wealth? This is not an argument in any way.

>And China's decades long double digit economic growth model wasn't thanks to the free market either. They call it "State Capitalism", which is a fancy way of saying fascism.

I wouldn't call China's growth anything exciting. They're growing slower than the Asian tigers, and there's no guarantee they'll break through the middle income trap.

>>Again, evidence and history does not support your claims.

>Yes it does. Most industries in market economies start out fiercely competitive but ultimately merge into an oligarchy if not strictly regulated by the government.

>6 companies control 90% of the USA's media, down from 50 in 1983.

>Since 1990, 37 of the USA's big banks merged to become just 4 too-big-to-fail megabanks.

I wouldn't call 4 banks an oligarchy. That's economies of scale. Do you have any evidence to suggest they are colluding?

>This process happens even faster in a small economy like Australia's, where we have been stuck with an cartel of 4 too-big-to-fail banks for a very long time now.

Again...4 companies is not an oligopoly.

>You need to acquaint yourself with the basics of how markets work, and how unregulated markets inevitably become monopolistic. You can start with "Wealth of Nations" by the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith.

Thanks for the advice. I guess my 4 years of economics study (with honours) at a top university was a massive waste of time.