1955 report what was Messina (birthing EU) for? 1945 report what was british language world service fo?; 2022-1945 what was UN & ITU for; dad. The economist's norman macrae, spent his last days as teen navigating air planes bomber command burma; he tried his best at reparation ever since- wind assisted, so to speak, by the most valuable question media men were ever given - von neumann 1951 asked dad: to ask anyone/everyone what goods will peoples do with 100 times more uniting tech every decade to 2020s? In 1951, VN had 6 years left working on good (ie way above zero sum human development exchages) after the Goats of maths (including einstein turing ..) had spent moist of their life on the bad on nuclear arms racing. They had a reason to defeat hitler. I am no genius (just a listener who ,oves transparent maps/maths) ---but can anyone tell me why are we currently using nuclear races to defaeal all 8 billion of our beings. MUCH MORE IMPORTANT FROM 9/9/2022: if you have time to add positive thinking to our survey QueenofHearts.city - please do

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

the immoral mr barnier - and other misleading cases of supreme bureaucracy

i love adam smith as a source of oxford union debate - eg this story of why slavery was hard for the barnier kind of  bureaucrat to end -related references
81ways.com 1461.world valuetrue.com economistrefugee.com

of course i cant parse this argument without positioning in withing the overacrhing framework of moral sentiments

so what has the likes of mr barnier got to do with it
around 2102 i flew into convergeces paris - a summit where community banking was uspposed to debate barnier on austerity- instead of being a real keynote speaker hundreds of delegates ad the right to expect he ead out a 5 mo=inute speech- said sorry i must fly back to bruseels now

that this person is still in the middle of ediating trad ebtween eg britain and eu must be causing jean monet to role in his grave as well as my afther nprman macrae the only jouranlist atmessina and the supporter of the 2 original ideas- mix up iron and settl ,arest fo fvrance and germany so much that never go to war again- free sall entreprsiues to entreprenurially trade across european borders valuing the frenc orign of the e-word which i dare Say had sought adam smiths principles for designig how healrhy societies generate syriong economies across generatins not vice versa

mr banier is of course a victim of the false austerity models usd by the eu whose top preferred to slave -actually destroy sustainability of youth - than to admit to elders that diue to subprime their pensions were worthless in 2008 unless they robbed youth - if you wanty a judge of that read pope paul's testimony to starsbourg of a union whose supre,be beings have designed  system that priortises the needs of haggard infertile grandmothers -

alas - istead f 2020 bein the year we do marvellous things with 5g as we humanise robits- the barniers of this world will take up all of media time and pied piper this subcontient if not the while world into orbots outh of which great will never see the chnace to have happy children

Persistent Inefficiency: Adam Smith’s Theory of Slavery and Its Abolition in Western Europe

31 Pages Posted: 27 Jul 2015 Last revised: 9 Dec 2016

Barry R. Weingast

Stanford University, Department of Political Science
Date Written: December 8, 2016


Adam Smith made two positive claims about slavery in the context of developing economies. First, Smith argued that slavery was in general highly inefficient. By his account, the net product under freedom is 12 times larger than under slavery. Second, he observes that, despite its inefficiencies, slavery persists in most of the world. Taken together, these claims create a fundamental puzzle: Why do elites – owning slaves and holding political control – fail to make themselves better off by freeing their slaves?
Smith gives two very different answers to this puzzle. The first is psychological. Smith asserts that people have a fundamental desire to dominate others, and slavery provided that opportunity for slaveholding elites. The first explanation is the most commonly advanced in the literature. Yet no where else does Smith use the assumption of domination. This explanation therefore seems ad hoc.
I favor instead Smith’s second explanation, which fits well with the recent literature on the political-economics of development. This argument, far less known in the Smith literature, involves commitment problems. Freeing the slaves would deprive slaveholders of their property. How would they be compensated? In principle, a long-term compensation scheme could solve this problem. But in the undeveloped societies Smith discusses, such as feudal Europe, long-term contracts were difficult – perhaps impossible – to enforce. Indeed, I show that both parties to the long-term compensation scheme had incentives to dishonor it. In the presence of commitment problems, masters could not be assured they would, in fact, be better off freeing their slaves. Slaveholders therefore rationally avoided emancipation despite its inefficiency. Smith, the so-called father of economics, provides here a political and legal argument for the failure of a more efficient system of labor markets to emerge

No comments:

Post a Comment