1. An interesting thread raising impt. qus. Adam Smith described the Wealth of Nations as "a very violent attack I have made upon the whole commercial system of Great Britain", a radical, liberal critique of the status quo that predates Marxism & is highly relevant today.
2. The 18th century status quo was a system in which vested interests (the East India Company & merchants on the N. American trades being prime examples) procured legislation from venal politicians which established market-rules biased/rigged in favour of those interests.
3. Sound familiar at all?
Re billionaires, it's not their number that matters, it's how they acquired their corn. If someone has acquired £5bn by providing value to customers equating to, say, £20bn, e.g. via major innovations, that's a Good Thing. (A Type 1 billionaire)
Re billionaires, it's not their number that matters, it's how they acquired their corn. If someone has acquired £5bn by providing value to customers equating to, say, £20bn, e.g. via major innovations, that's a Good Thing. (A Type 1 billionaire)
4. If, on the other hand, the stash was gained by fraud and deception, corruption, the bending of market rules away from impartiality & an even balance of power between buyers & sellers, & other methods that cause net public harm, that's a different matter. (A type 2 billionaire)
5. If there is a 'billionaire problem' (which I think there is) it is this: too few Type 1s and too many Type 2s.
Today's ideologues of neo-liberalism have arguably contributed to an imbalance by too easily (and falsely) equating liberalisation of markets with de-regulation.
Today's ideologues of neo-liberalism have arguably contributed to an imbalance by too easily (and falsely) equating liberalisation of markets with de-regulation.
6. The empirical reality is captured in the title of a book by a US colleague, Steven Vogel: "Freer markets, more rules: Regulatory Reform in Advance Industrial Countries". Obvious when stated. Classroom question of old: how many lawyers in the US compared with the Soviet Union?
7. A corollary: if there is a market rule-making/regulation problem (and IMO there is) it's not that there are simply too many rules, it's this: there are too *few* functional rules & too many dysfunctional rules.
8. Finally, & inconveniently for the terribles simplificateurs, there's no convincing evidence that European legislation is a larger source of imbalance than is UK legislation. Rule-making know-how seems to be in short supply everywhere & importuning interest groups ubiquitous.
