The problem with “wot Adam said” type arguments is that The Wealth of Nations is like the Bible; you can find a quote in it to support anything.
As to the cartel thing, yes, all well and good. But those of us who have gone beyond Adam into the world of Austrian economics know that cartels are transients who have far less economic power than cartelophobes claim anyway. (Menger, and all that). Except the ones the government set up. Like the housing one at the moment.
Above paragraph is not having a go at Tim, it’s in case DBC Reed wanders by.
Also, because my knowledge of potash is even lesser than my knowledge of the location of the G spot.
More TImmy elsewhere I see: the Fink’s article in the Times today:
“When the Conservative MP Jesse Norman recently argued that companies should have regard to their broader obligations when paying tax, Tim Worstall, a fellow of the Adam Smith Institute, asked openly what the point was of the Labour Party if Tories said things “so drippingly wet”.
However, Mr Worstall is wrong to think Mr Norman’s idea “left-wing”. Not that he is alone in this error, as is shown by the debate over the Archbishop of Canterbury’s intervention in the debate over payday loans. Justin Welby told Total Politics magazine that he did not intend to try to legislate Wonga out of business, he intended to compete them out of business. His plans have justly attracted a lot of attention. Yet his first statement — that he would not try to legislate Wonga out of business — was as important as the competing bit. “
Luke
Is that the same potash stuff that you want us to dynamite the Yorkshire Moors for? That is now cheap as chips? (Though not as cheap as this comment I’ll admit.)
The problem with “wot Adam said” type arguments is that The Wealth of Nations is like the Bible; you can find a quote in it to support anything.
As to the cartel thing, yes, all well and good. But those of us who have gone beyond Adam into the world of Austrian economics know that cartels are transients who have far less economic power than cartelophobes claim anyway. (Menger, and all that). Except the ones the government set up. Like the housing one at the moment.
Above paragraph is not having a go at Tim, it’s in case DBC Reed wanders by.
Also, because my knowledge of potash is even lesser than my knowledge of the location of the G spot.
More TImmy elsewhere I see: the Fink’s article in the Times today:
“When the Conservative MP Jesse Norman recently argued that companies should have regard to their broader obligations when paying tax, Tim Worstall, a fellow of the Adam Smith Institute, asked openly what the point was of the Labour Party if Tories said things “so drippingly wet”.
However, Mr Worstall is wrong to think Mr Norman’s idea “left-wing”. Not that he is alone in this error, as is shown by the debate over the Archbishop of Canterbury’s intervention in the debate over payday loans. Justin Welby told Total Politics magazine that he did not intend to try to legislate Wonga out of business, he intended to compete them out of business. His plans have justly attracted a lot of attention. Yet his first statement — that he would not try to legislate Wonga out of business — was as important as the competing bit. “
Is that the same potash stuff that you want us to dynamite the Yorkshire Moors for? That is now cheap as chips? (Though not as cheap as this comment I’ll admit.)
Luke, you got in first with the York Moors jibe.