From time to time I see or hear claims that Adam Smith favored progressive taxation, on at least one occasion that he favored a progressive income tax.
David, your total fairness, your exaltation of reason, your total lack of _parti pris_ is almost Olympian! Most people say "let us follow reason," then enslave reason to making an artifice of their preconceived interests... – which is why we are all on your site, I guess.
Now the scary part: Which LLM will pick up the correct reading of Adam Smith – or anybody else who requires a close reading? – Or will none of them?
“The only income he approves of taxing is the income of government officials.”
Except that people who are paid out of taxation cannot genuinely be taxed. It is a book-keeping propaganda pretence that they are taxed just like people in the market sector. And as they make no overall tax contributions, they should not be allowed to vote: no representation without taxation!
People often read what they know is there rather than what's in front of their eyes. Some years ago I was copy editing a book that discussed Thomas Hobbes's political ideas—and said that Hobbes was an advocate of a flat tax. But the author actually quoted Hobbes, and what Hobbes said was that the state exists to protect our lives, that everyone values their life equally, and that therefore the state should charge everyone the same amount for its services. That's not a "flat tax" (which increased in proportion to income or wealth or something) but a "poll tax." I queried the author, and he actually changed that passage. . . . But he needed a copy editor to point out the plain sense of Hobbes's words.
I have to say I found it ironic, a defender of absolute monarchy and the Leviathan state, laid it down that the state could not decree any tax that exceeded the sum that every man could pay. That sounded much less absolute than I expected!
I have no specific view on whether or not Adam Smith favoured progressive taxation but here are some broader thoughts on what he can teach us about 21st c. macroeconomics economics:
"Contrary to a commonly held caricature, Adam Smith was as much social psychologist as economist and his philosophy was certainly not one of valorising greed. His profound insight was that a combination of two of mankind’s primary driving forces – self-interest and ‘natural sympathy’ – working together could be an “invisible hand” guiding it towards a collective thriving. The most trenchant critique of globalisation in my view is that Adam Smith’s ‘natural sympathy’ can only really be sustained at a societal scale where some collective sense of community exists." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/globalism-vs-national-conservatism
I very much enjoyed this post, though I do have to watch out for the guilt of enjoying it not just for truth and learning but seeing one's friends expose the error of those less close.
I am somewhat inclined to test out how an LLM or two think on these matters - on the specific issues you raise, on what Adam Smith said on those issues, and on the people misquoting Adam Smith - separately at first, and then introducing the other streams of questioning.
Both Claude and Gemini have somewhat of a bias in the same direction that you detected in these human authors, though Claude has more willingness to notice and admit it when caught. On one of the progressive taxation quotes, and on the public schooling quote, Claude even went straight to a fairly decent answer, even attacking selective quotation and misuse of Smith without anything other than the quote and the use of the quote to go on.
Also, because this is relevant to the question of luxuries and luxury taxation, I had Claude Opus do an analysis of who was doing the spending on the luxuries Smith mentions. The median spender of those luxuries was the 75th percentile of income. Middle class.
To see Smith be a bit progressive, see Chapter IX, "Of the Profits of Stock." Smith advances the argument that the profit rate of stock (aka capital) diminishes as stock accumulates. And where stock is plentiful wages go up. This is an argument for balancing the federal budget. Deficit spending is a price support program for the already rich.
He also mentions that both wages and the return on stock were high in the colonies -- which is an unusual combination. Wages were high because of a surplus of land. Restricting immigration is thus locally egalitarian.
Yep. On the other hand the John Birchers look pretty good compared to the Supply Siders. (And no, I am not endorsing the elaborate termite charts of "None Dare Call it Conspiracy." I don't think it requires an elaborate conspiracy to convince the government to run deficits. But the consequences are the same whether it is by international banksters or an irresponsible electorate.)
David Brin’s novels were well received originally, and won awards; I have five of them. But I don’t think they’ve aged well; on the whole, I’m not keen on them now. Yes, this is a digression and not to the point; sorry!
No, good digression. I especially like his Uplift series, at least the imagination and sweep of the first two or three, even if I do think the whole galactic library background was not well thought-out. I've reread those several times and still enjoy them. But the later ones always seemed to be forced, as if he wrote them to pay bills or because he felt the urge to write without having any particular plans in mind. I think the same of the last Sherlock Holmes short stories (Case Book?).
Brin's Transparent Society was great, but could have been done in a short story. In particular, I liked the insight that it wasn't the snoopy police cameras themselves which bother people so much as everyone suspecting the police are looking in windows more than the streets and sidewalks, and there were two possible solutions: put public cameras in the police monitor room so the public can watch the watchers, or allow the public to see all the cameras the police are actually using at the moment.
And then I loaned Transparent Society to a local lawyer, and he hasn't returned the book, or email or calls, in the last ten years.
Sorry again, because I don’t believe in the Uplift series. The whole Uplift thing is akin to a religion, and it’s not credible that every different intelligent species in the galaxy would follow the same religion. Not even humans (one species on one planet) are capable of agreeing on one religion.
I wouldn’t call it a religion, and agree it is not credible. But every science fiction story has plot points you just have to accept as part of the story, credible or not. You may as well claim the Bible, Koran, and all the other founding documents are not credible and dismiss religion for depending on such stories, all of which cannot be simultaneously true.
It’s not exactly a religion, but it’s akin to a religion: the mystical idea that Uplift confers status on your species is something that Brin’s aliens believe in for no particular reason. And no, I’m not religious; never have been.
Is there an abridged version of Wealth of Nations that you would reccomend? Or a recommended selection of sections to skip over? I've tried reading it a couple of times and swiftly gotten bogged down.
I don't know of any good summary versions of The Wealth of Nations. In some ways you really just have to read it all carefully; Smith doesn't go in for facile, one sided arguments much, so there tends to be a lot of back and forth on a subject in his own voice. I agree that sometimes that makes it a bit slow going, although one gets used to it after a while.
I would skip the discourses on silver, personally. They don't add much of anything, or really make much sense. I kept getting the feeling they were referencing some background knowledge of current events I just lacked.
David, your total fairness, your exaltation of reason, your total lack of _parti pris_ is almost Olympian! Most people say "let us follow reason," then enslave reason to making an artifice of their preconceived interests... – which is why we are all on your site, I guess.
Now the scary part: Which LLM will pick up the correct reading of Adam Smith – or anybody else who requires a close reading? – Or will none of them?
“The only income he approves of taxing is the income of government officials.”
Except that people who are paid out of taxation cannot genuinely be taxed. It is a book-keeping propaganda pretence that they are taxed just like people in the market sector. And as they make no overall tax contributions, they should not be allowed to vote: no representation without taxation!
https://www.la-articles.org.uk/tax.htm
nice!
no representation without taxation
Has Noah Smith corrected his earlier post on this yet?
And yet I think Smith believed in the labor theory of value. Is that true?
If so, hard to believe. Supply and demand is not so obvious!
People often read what they know is there rather than what's in front of their eyes. Some years ago I was copy editing a book that discussed Thomas Hobbes's political ideas—and said that Hobbes was an advocate of a flat tax. But the author actually quoted Hobbes, and what Hobbes said was that the state exists to protect our lives, that everyone values their life equally, and that therefore the state should charge everyone the same amount for its services. That's not a "flat tax" (which increased in proportion to income or wealth or something) but a "poll tax." I queried the author, and he actually changed that passage. . . . But he needed a copy editor to point out the plain sense of Hobbes's words.
I have to say I found it ironic, a defender of absolute monarchy and the Leviathan state, laid it down that the state could not decree any tax that exceeded the sum that every man could pay. That sounded much less absolute than I expected!
I have no specific view on whether or not Adam Smith favoured progressive taxation but here are some broader thoughts on what he can teach us about 21st c. macroeconomics economics:
"Contrary to a commonly held caricature, Adam Smith was as much social psychologist as economist and his philosophy was certainly not one of valorising greed. His profound insight was that a combination of two of mankind’s primary driving forces – self-interest and ‘natural sympathy’ – working together could be an “invisible hand” guiding it towards a collective thriving. The most trenchant critique of globalisation in my view is that Adam Smith’s ‘natural sympathy’ can only really be sustained at a societal scale where some collective sense of community exists." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/globalism-vs-national-conservatism
I very much enjoyed this post, though I do have to watch out for the guilt of enjoying it not just for truth and learning but seeing one's friends expose the error of those less close.
I am somewhat inclined to test out how an LLM or two think on these matters - on the specific issues you raise, on what Adam Smith said on those issues, and on the people misquoting Adam Smith - separately at first, and then introducing the other streams of questioning.
I did as much.
Both Claude and Gemini have somewhat of a bias in the same direction that you detected in these human authors, though Claude has more willingness to notice and admit it when caught. On one of the progressive taxation quotes, and on the public schooling quote, Claude even went straight to a fairly decent answer, even attacking selective quotation and misuse of Smith without anything other than the quote and the use of the quote to go on.
Also, because this is relevant to the question of luxuries and luxury taxation, I had Claude Opus do an analysis of who was doing the spending on the luxuries Smith mentions. The median spender of those luxuries was the 75th percentile of income. Middle class.
https://marshwiggleaidialogues.substack.com/p/sonnet-on-views-on-adam-smith
To see Smith be a bit progressive, see Chapter IX, "Of the Profits of Stock." Smith advances the argument that the profit rate of stock (aka capital) diminishes as stock accumulates. And where stock is plentiful wages go up. This is an argument for balancing the federal budget. Deficit spending is a price support program for the already rich.
He also mentions that both wages and the return on stock were high in the colonies -- which is an unusual combination. Wages were high because of a surplus of land. Restricting immigration is thus locally egalitarian.
"capital) diminishes as stock accumulates"
sounds like a refutation of the Marxian myth that the growth of "surplus capital" progressively exploits workers.
Yep. On the other hand the John Birchers look pretty good compared to the Supply Siders. (And no, I am not endorsing the elaborate termite charts of "None Dare Call it Conspiracy." I don't think it requires an elaborate conspiracy to convince the government to run deficits. But the consequences are the same whether it is by international banksters or an irresponsible electorate.)
Thanks
David Brin’s novels were well received originally, and won awards; I have five of them. But I don’t think they’ve aged well; on the whole, I’m not keen on them now. Yes, this is a digression and not to the point; sorry!
No, good digression. I especially like his Uplift series, at least the imagination and sweep of the first two or three, even if I do think the whole galactic library background was not well thought-out. I've reread those several times and still enjoy them. But the later ones always seemed to be forced, as if he wrote them to pay bills or because he felt the urge to write without having any particular plans in mind. I think the same of the last Sherlock Holmes short stories (Case Book?).
Brin's Transparent Society was great, but could have been done in a short story. In particular, I liked the insight that it wasn't the snoopy police cameras themselves which bother people so much as everyone suspecting the police are looking in windows more than the streets and sidewalks, and there were two possible solutions: put public cameras in the police monitor room so the public can watch the watchers, or allow the public to see all the cameras the police are actually using at the moment.
And then I loaned Transparent Society to a local lawyer, and he hasn't returned the book, or email or calls, in the last ten years.
Sorry again, because I don’t believe in the Uplift series. The whole Uplift thing is akin to a religion, and it’s not credible that every different intelligent species in the galaxy would follow the same religion. Not even humans (one species on one planet) are capable of agreeing on one religion.
I wouldn’t call it a religion, and agree it is not credible. But every science fiction story has plot points you just have to accept as part of the story, credible or not. You may as well claim the Bible, Koran, and all the other founding documents are not credible and dismiss religion for depending on such stories, all of which cannot be simultaneously true.
It’s not exactly a religion, but it’s akin to a religion: the mystical idea that Uplift confers status on your species is something that Brin’s aliens believe in for no particular reason. And no, I’m not religious; never have been.
Is there an abridged version of Wealth of Nations that you would reccomend? Or a recommended selection of sections to skip over? I've tried reading it a couple of times and swiftly gotten bogged down.
I don't know of any good summary versions of The Wealth of Nations. In some ways you really just have to read it all carefully; Smith doesn't go in for facile, one sided arguments much, so there tends to be a lot of back and forth on a subject in his own voice. I agree that sometimes that makes it a bit slow going, although one gets used to it after a while.
I would skip the discourses on silver, personally. They don't add much of anything, or really make much sense. I kept getting the feeling they were referencing some background knowledge of current events I just lacked.
No cliffs notes??? lol
What about Claude ai?