"Morality and Economics"

This is a commencement address given by Joan Robinson at the University of Maine three decades ago:

Morality and Economics, by Joan Robinson, May, 1977, University of Maine: I Want to speak about the philosophy of economics. It is an extremely important element in the view of life and the conceptions which prevail in this country. Freedom is the great ideal. Along with the concept of freedom goes freedom of the market, and the philosophy of orthodox economics is that the pursuit of self-interest will lead to the benefit of society. By this means the moral problem is abolished. The moral problem is concerned with the conflict between individual interest and the interest of society. And since this doctrine tells us that there is no conflict, we can all pursue our self-interest with a good conscience.

This doctrine is attributed to Adam Smith. Adam Smith was the founder of the economics of the modern world. He rejected regulation. He was against regulation and he was against government interference in trade and industry. He wanted to rely on the pursuit of individual self-interest to allow economic development. And, of course, he turned out to be quite right; in the modern world, there has been a fantastic degree of economic development with a level of productivity never attained in any other civilization.

Adam Smith says in The Wealth of Nations,

In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

In another passage, there is a famous phrase about the market leading individuals by an invisible hand to the benefit of all. He was talking in that particular context against protectionists. Adam Smith argued that there was no need to protect home industry because in fact every producer will prefer to sell in the home market if he can, rather than selling abroad. He intends only his own gain and his own security. In the pursuit of self-interest he is, "as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which is no part of his intentions".

The phrase "invisible hand"- taken from this particular context, the case against protection, has been used as a central doctrine in the teaching of orthodox economics: the notion that individuals have no need to consider the collective results of their behaviour. Do not worry about social problems. Social problems will all be all right if everybody looks after his own self-interest.

This leads Professor Kenneth Arrow, himself a great exponent of the mathematics of the market economy, to say, "The idealization of freedom through the market completely ignores the fact that this freedom can be, to a large number of people, very limited in scope". (The Limits of Organization) I think that when Adam Smith was telling the story of getting his dinner from the butcher, the brewer, and the baker he was really thinking of a gentleman who has money to spend. He was not thinking of the struggles of those tradesmen to make a living. The price system can generate this kind of error. Kenneth Arrow writes:

The price system can also be attacked on the ground that it harnesses motives which our ethical systems frequently condemn. It makes a virtue of selfishness. Some economists, much taken with this system, have argued that, for example, business corporations are committing a social wrong if they try to engage in socially desirable activities; their aims should be properly only to maximize their profits, and that this is indeed the socially most desirable activity that they can engage in.

This doctrine which, of course, is very widespread, favours those who have some base to start with. It follows the old rule: "To him that hath shall be given; from him that hath not shall be taken away."

There are many examples in the modern world showing how this doctrine of the free market - the pursuit of self-interest - has worked out to the disadvantage of society. You are well aware of the problems of environmental destruction which takes place with the development of high capitalist industry. The problem has come up now in Canada in a particularly horrible form with the spread of the minamata disease which was so devastating in Japan. This disease comes from emitting mercury into rivers. People who eat the fish from those rivers suffer from this incurable disease. If you are arguing in favour of maximizing profits, you must be in favour of allowing the industry to make cheap newsprint - so that you can have very thick newspapers at the expense of poisoning the rivers of Canada and allowing the Indian population to be killed (or worse, to remain half-alive).

There is another example which comes from the medical profession. Today there is some attempt to help poorer people who cannot afford the fees of doctors by giving them some medical aid. This is given to them in the form of payments which can be made to doctors. So the doctors fill out forms to say what services they have given. But as they are subject to the general doctrine of pursuing self-interest, they have to be checked. It becomes necessary to have a special bureaucracy to check these checks and to see whether the service has actually been given by the doctors who filled out the forms.

These are well-known examples - I think any of you can immediately think of innumerable examples - of what has happened as the result of upholding the doctrine that the pursuit of self-interest benefits society.

Now, I think it was a shame to associate Adam Smith with this doctrine. It is certainly true that he praised private enterprise and the market system as against state regulation. But he relied very much upon morality. He took it for granted that there is an ethical foundation for society, and it was against this background that he opened up his economic doctrine. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, he wrote:

It is thus that man, who can subsist only in society, was fitted by nature to that situation for which he was made. All the members of human society stand in need of each other's assistance, and are likewise exposed to mutual injuries. Where the necessary assistance is reciprocally afforded from love, from gratitude, from friendship, and esteem, the society flourishes and is happy. All the different members of it are bound together by the agreeable bands of love and affection, and are, as it were, drawn to one common centre of mutual good offices.

But though the necessary assistance should not be afforded from such generous and disinterested motives, though among the different members of the society there should be no mutual love and affection, the society, though less happy and agreeable, will not necessarily be dissolved. Society may subsist among different men, as among different merchants, from a sense of its utility, without any mutual love or affection; and though no man in it should owe any obligation, or be bound in gratitude to any other, it may be upheld by a mercenary exchange of good offices according to an agreed valuation.

Society, however, cannot subsist among those who are at all times ready to hurt and injure one another. The moment that injury begins, the moment that mutual resentment and animosity take place, all the bonds of it are broken asunder, and the different members of which it consisted, are, as it were, dissipated and scattered abroad by the violence and opposition of their discordant affections. If there is any society among robbers and murderers, they must at least, according to the trite observation, abstain from robbing and murdering one another.

Then he makes a comment on the sense of values which people have:

This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect, persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. That wealth and greatness are often regarded with the respect and admiration which are due only to wisdom and virtue; and that the contempt, of which vice and folly are the only proper objects, is often most unjustly bestowed upon poverty and weakness, has been the complaint of moralists in all ages....

The respect which we feel to wisdom and virtue is no doubt different from that which we conceive for wealth and greatness. It requires no very nice discernment to distinguish the difference. But notwithstanding these differences, those sentiments bear a considerable resemblance to one another. In some particular features, they are no doubt different, but in the general air of the countenance, they seem to be so very nearly the same that inattentive observers are very apt to mistake the one for the other.

Adam Smith believed in a natural order of morality. When man was formed for society he was endowed with the moral sentiments which would make society possible. But the second part of his doctrine, the "Wealth of Nations", has succeeded in undermining those sentiments to a very considerable extent and putting in their place the doctrine that the pursuit of profit is a substitute for morality.

Now even Professor Kenneth Arrow, the great exponent of orthodoxy, has come to the conclusion that a society of individualists cannot succeed and prosper and that along with the necessary institutions of government and business we must have the invisible institution of the moral law.

I hope that the moral consciousness which has grown up in modern times in the youth of America, which has led them to protest against the unequal balance prevailing between morality and the market, will continue to prosper in this generation and that you will find that the doctrines of Adam Smith are not to be taken in the form in which your professors are explaining them to you.

Comments

[donna]

Thanks so much for this. I get so tired of those who have read Wealth of Nations and never heard of Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Adam Smith believed people had a responsibility to behave morally, in others' interests as well as their own and for the good of all.

Too many have forgotten that today.

[dale]

A great part of the needed socio-political-moral work we do today is related to this effort to rebalance the relationship between morality and what passes for economics. The struggle between system and lifeworld, to use Habermas' dichotomy, will always need careful tending. The tension will always be there. The balance needs to be somewhere in the direction of a healthy lifeworld, public sphere, private sphere, setting the tone or boundaries for the economic system. Reverse the colonization-reification processes that have defined the capitalist-state socialist-industrial age.

[William Polley]

"But the second part of his doctrine, the 'Wealth of Nations', has succeeded in undermining those sentiments to a very considerable extent and putting in their place the doctrine that the pursuit of profit is a substitute for morality."

That's not Smith's fault. I've read and studied both works. They complement each other by dealing with different spheres of human interaction. They are not in conflict.

The problem is not that WN has undermined anything but that an untempered reading of it (either without TMS as a backdrop, or worse, consciously ignoring it) led some people astray. Now others are being led astray by people who have never even read either book but know only what they've been told.

Even Milton Friedman, in his oft quoted article, "The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits" qualifies it with:

"...while con­forming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom."

I never hear people mention that either.

[ken melvin]

Self interests work well enough for the territorial cougar and tiger, but we humans, long crowded together in great numbers, are interdependent.

[Rolf Norfolk]

What do your respondents think about James Kynge's "China Shakes The World" and Richard Duncan's "The Dollar Crisis"?

Should the ideal-world arguments for free trade govern our behaviour in a world where the biggest national economy is running on decaying currency, and its major trading partner is sacrificing profit for market share on a scale that is almost tantamount to economic warfare?

I would welcome comments sent to my blog, "Bearwatch" at http://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.com

[Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD]

"Morality and Economics"
Adam Smith, Keynes, Malthusians, Samuelsun, and many economists would churn in the graves. They talked of money and demand and supply the facility to lift the barter off and use the portable E-cards now. But they never thought in the moral sense that this would happen. They were right on one direction. Away from politics and towards economy, but also they need to be wake up told how wrong their cannons were or are used. They are now rotten cannons. We have no economics but pilferages by the politicians and backed by the Presidents.

I have a very strong case against the journalism of the Tanzanian papers. But you think I can wrote on any issue, No. Why? Manager of the Bank of The Tanzania stole lots of money. This was reported in the papers. All of them. Then public, oppressed as they are, wanted to know the tax payers' money quantified and what the government was doing? The wife came in the next day paper. She is innocent and no one is allowed to talk of the issue of Bank of Tanzania as this is whistle blowing. So those who have lost the money keep their mouths shut.
You see I stated this and I sate this again. Here and many countries it is not the Global policies that are adapted but if you have a photograph of the President shaking hand with you and if you hank\g this at the entrance, all you the queries evaporate and know this, no one Tax officer or any one dare come in. Mere shake hand.
Now we come to the Scooter. I was amazed at the cell phone giving me the breaking news that Mr. Bush saying that the punishment was too harsh. I mean what is harshness. Again I simply dislike the politician getting onto the stream of the accountants and auditors who are watching the money of the corporatism that pays the chunks of tax.
So in the end what comes in?
Mr. Bush oh, Mr. Bush, please wake up. You are politicians that make us not rich but poor. The country may look hollow (Power packed to the outsiders) but these sorts of Libby cases and your intrusion definitely is uncalled for. In what cases will you pout your hands? The Judiciary, Banks, Cheats, CIA leaks... I have had no comments on this... I am not surprised. It does not cover your time.
Please let SEC do the job and we will have better working people not the thugs who get away because they are the politics’ friends.
I thank you,
Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa

[Gabriel M.]

>> "The moral problem is concerned with the conflict between individual interest and the interest of society."

What an impoverished, materialistic, bleak notion of morality!

[paine]

gabriel's horn blows flat notes

how is this brief
in fact minimal indication
by robinson
"bleak" ??

what is "impoverished" ???
(notice a material metaphor
in an ostensive
appeal to the non material )

yes indeed it deals with the arrangements
of the material base of a society

but its point....

the well being of society
requires
(of most of its individuals at least )
that they each include
in their calculus of actions
not merely the consequences
of these actions on others
that redound to their self regarded rewards
but also to the rewards
that accrue from these actions to others
independent of any rewards to self

ps
did i use stiff enough diction here
for this most 18th century of exchanges ???

[anne]

Though I understand that "trackback" refers to another website that links to a specific posting, what sort of website is vilifying Joan Robinson and why? I prefer not to even access the trackback link which shows such maliciousness, but I wondered if anyone knows.

[anne]

"The moral problem is concerned with the conflict between individual interest and the interest of society."

Ah, I begin to understand. Reinhold Neibuhr wrote a remarkable book with a parallel theme called "Moral Man, Immoral Society." But, of course reconciling individual and collective interests is always a critical philosophical and practical problem. Why then should Joan Robinson has evidently collected such unthinking criticism over a philosophical truism?

[evagrius]

The gentleman Gabriel wishes a distinction between politics and economics. But experience has shown that the distinction is superficial in many ways.

[Gabriel M.]

OK... let me elaborate, then.

What would have Aristotle, Aquinas, Rawls and Nozick (an unrepresentative sample, but interesting one) think of Mrs. Robinson's DEFINITION of morality?

Since when is (or when was) Arrow a *defender of markets* and a representative of the "orthodoxy"? The answer is that he's not. He's the creator of a popular model of markets and a very apologetic one at that.

Robinson was to the left of Arrow who is to the left of Samuelson who is slightly to the left of Center. So I guess her confusion made sense, in a way.

Perhaps next we could be regaled with quotes from her book on Mao's Cultural Revolution. I'm sure we'd get a better sense of what she considered to be morality's demands.

As for the substantial point... As Thatcher pointed out, there's no society, only individuals. There's no "society's wellbeing". Only individual wellbeing. And the price systems is exactly a mechanism for the coordination of individual interests. No one said you should like it. But to claim that it is not is wrong.

Moral choice is individual choice. Moral puzzles are not trivial and misrepresenting free market thinkers (which is clearly what Robinson does) is unfortunate.

Hence my... creative reaction.

[anne]

Hence nonsense, but there we have the source of the trackback idiocy; hence....

[Gabriel M.]

Idiocy? Perhaps. But we idiots can have our say too, no?

Also... the phrase "useful idiot" also comes to mind. I wonder why!

[anne]

Joan Robinson's graduation speech is remarkable for thoughtful creativeness, and well warranted. I am thankful for the post. I was only puzzled at the immediate character attack that the post drew, and understanding now can move on to thinking of the speech with no concern otherwise.

[reason]

I get the feeling that Gabriel M is trying to be controversial in order to promote his blog.

I must say his position is too subtle for me at the moment, I don't really know where he stands. But a critique that starts she is to the left of him and he is to the left of... loses me to start with. I don't think left vs right describes very much at all. I see myself as somewhat pro-market solutions, VERY pro-green, VERY pro-democracy and very critical of the limitations of modern economics (but I see some possible solutions). Where does that put me on a left/right scale? Definitely anti-libertarian (pro-green and pro-democracy) but I see libertarians as a serious intellectual challenge unlike conservatives who just seem internally inconsistant to me.

[Gabriel M.]

OK, but what did she really say...

First, that Adam Smith is not a caricature of Adam Smith. True by definition.

That Arrow says markets fail and this matters because Arrow is "a great exponent of the mathematics of the market economy" (but clearly not a free marketeer).

That markets don't internalize the costs of 3rd party harm. (Which is as much as Milton Friedman will have always told you, but he would have seen that as reason to uphold property rights and create the now missing markets where applicable.)

What she doesn't do is name people who uphold this doctrine of self-interest she claims is at the root of all evils. Could it be that there are none? Who are the market fundamentalists (strawmen?) she's fighting?

[evagrius]

"What would have Aristotle, Aquinas, Rawls and Nozick (an unrepresentative sample, but interesting" group think of your assertion; "As for the substantial point... As Thatcher pointed out, there's no society, only individuals. There's no "society's wellbeing". Only individual wellbeing. And the price systems is exactly a mechanism for the coordination of individual interests. No one said you should like it. But to claim that it is not is wrong."?

Human beings do not exists as individuals....not if they want to be human.

This is the essential contradiction of proponents of "individualism"; to be independent individuals as fully formed, grown, and linguistically and rationaly capable one must be nurtured, taught and guided by others in what is usually thought of as society.

For humans to be as independently individuals as proposed by individualists would require that they hatch fully formed from eggs.
Such creatures have not yet existed in this realm, ( though one could argue that angels, each being its own species are- but they're not perceptible to us).

[anne]

Well, the market fundamentalists who might be questioned are just those host of radical conservatives who fought Teddy Roosevelt on anti-trust development and environmental protections, the conservatives who fought Franklin Roosevelt on every New Deal assistance, the conservatives who would to this day destroy Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Name names? The problem is finding a conservative by 2000, with the least sense that market limits might ever be properly limited at the same time that market interference favoring business interests was always considered in order.

The straw-folks control the White House, have controlled the Congress and finally control the Supreme Court. Otherwise, there are really no radical conservatives.

[anne]

We have just been through a Supreme Court session alone in which the right of workers to fight discrimination has been severely curtailed, the right of corporations to fix prices has been selectively affirmed, environmental safeguards have been limited, and on.... We are indeed passing through a period of the dominance of radical conservatives.

We have the Governor of Mississippi busily cutting Medicaid, leading to an increase in infant mortality that is unlike that experienced in any other developed country, and we wonder about market imperfections. Please.

Can we say, Michael Moore?

[Lafayette]

anne: But, of course reconciling individual and collective interests is always a critical philosophical and practical problem.

Yes, but that is why we created democracies, isn't it?

What there must be is debate amongst adversarial opinion, open to all, the larger the better. Then voters decide, perhaps based upon their individual proclivities for primacy of individual or collective rights. But, it is essential to freedom to respect the will of the people. Vox populi.

What is difficult is the moral dilemma the democracy can produce. A case in point is the plutocratic Washington of today. Apparently it is insufficient to detest the leadership today because there is not much that we can do about it in between elections. Perhaps this is goodness, in that it works for the political stability of a nation.

However, if one looks at the Presidency over the past hundred years, how much has presidential will conflicted with some apparent moral imperative (as seen by the electorate)? Quite often, I suggest.

What to do about it? Suffer in silence? I think not.

A far, far better thing to do is to give the electorate its means of expressing an opinion, not by polls, but by an actual referendum. Otherwise, we simply waste our breath (or keystrokes) on complaining about "those idiots in Washington".

Complaining is necessary - but woefully insufficient.

NB: Referendums are also a terrible risk. Ask the consent of the people, and Lord knows what they will say. I am reminded of the European Constitution that was passed by numerous EU legislatures, only to be shot down in referendums (France/Holland). And, which is why, this time around, the New Concise Constitution will NOT take that route. It will be passed by genuflecting legislatures. (Referendums have a way of upsetting political apple carts ... not to mention careers.)

[Gabriel M.]

You were right that I was too polemic. That's my fault. But the issues are real.

evagrius,
The point of individualism is that individuals interact with each other on a personal level. Individual-to-individual. Not individual-to-society, which ultimately means individual-to-political-power.

You'll find this sort of individualism is Catholicism too.

anne,
Those people have been fought from many sides, with better and worse reasons. It's hardly a litmus test.

Also, the point was restricted to the orthodox economic profession... Who, out of the Nobel winners until 1977 fitted the indictment? No one. And no one fits it if we look at all Nobel laureates since. (Except maybe Vernon Smith.)

You seem to share Robinson's belief that there's a huge conservative orthodoxy/conspiracy... But then how come the US is not a conservative paradise by now?

[anne]

Also, I was reminded that Michael Moore was terribly telling about how backward American automobile makers had become in "Roger and Me," but the backwardness was little attened to for years and years and spoiled lives of workers to come. Possibly "Sicko" will do more, but public radio * began the review with the word "propaganda."

Michael Moore, I am told, was invited to the New York stock exchange yesterday, only to be turned away at the gates.

* Mark Thoma in fine postings has shown me the difference between public radio news and analysis shows. Car Talk?

[evagrius]

evagrius,
The point of individualism is that individuals interact with each other on a personal level. Individual-to-individual. Not individual-to-society, which ultimately means individual-to-political-power.

Really? You mean that a peasant could just deal with his noble on a "personal level" and vice-vera? Do you mean that an individual could just interact with a corporation "person-to-person"?

I think you've simplified the situation far too much.

Look up the history of communes in the Middle Ages. An interesting viewpoint which argues that people did not just interact with each other on an "individual level".

[anne]

Thank you for moderating.

I do not believe there is any "conspiracy" of conservatives on policy, just an often discussed and agreed on set of policy objectives by and for conservatives. However though Republicans have recently been dominant politically, the dominance was somewhat limited by Democrats through the last election and has been somewhat more limited since.

[anne]

Now, if America is not a conservative "paradise" by now it is because there are still checks on political change and because too many voting Americans are evidently not willing to allow much more conservatism in light of the current problems in which we find ourselves.

Nonetheless, we are wildly conservative in policy at present and conservatives should be wildly happy though they lack a sense of proportion and fear on fear they are not loved appropriately.

[Gabriel M.]

evagrius,

Individual-to-individual is the standard. Of course it was not met in the Middle Ages and that's why individualists don't like the Middle Ages.

Re: corporations, yes, you meet in the marketplace and decide if you're willing to do business or not. It's voluntary association. You might not always like your choices but you have them.

You want to accuse individualists of the fact that there's too much impersonal, political power, institutionalized discrimination and so on. But clearly those are the characteristics of collectivism, not individualism. Much if not all political power is gained by appealing to "society's wellbeing". The abuses are unavoidable and quick to follow.

[anne]

"But then how come the US is not a conservative paradise by now?"

The more I think the funnier the passage. Conservatives have gained the ultimate in conservative presidents in George Bush who has driven the country to wildly conservative extremes, still conservatives are forever moaning and groaning about us not being conservative enough. Well, next year, on to Iran. That should be the answer to the lunatics.

[anne]

When the terms of choice are "collectivism" and the like, there is only comedy. Also, I seldom meet people who are middle aged who come close to being individualists which is why I am decided not to age. No middle ages for me.

[reason]

Gabriel M.
Re: corporations, yes, you meet in the marketplace and decide if you're willing to do business or not.

And if I want them to stop polluting the local river? Or to stop making so much noise after midnight?

I agree with you, there is an individual sphere and a political sphere. But economically, individuals require a public sphere (public infrastructure) where they can meet on neutral ground and processes to settle their differences. There are also activities such as defence, policing, immigration and social support (including public education) that really are controlled by societal decisions. Some of these things you could choose to do without, but I think that is also a social choice. Almost every society (including the most primitive) that has existed has had these things in some form or another.

[Bruce Webb]

Anne and Lafayette have put their finger on the problem. Classical Economics is incompatible with Universal Democratic Suffrage.

Smith and Ricardo developed the fundamentals in a time and place (19th century Britain) where large majorities did not have the franchise. It is a fable that Ricardo did not believe there were losers from Free Trade or that Smith thought Free Markets would deliver Equity to all without intervention from the outside. Ricardian CA and Smith's Invisible Hand arguably do deliver the most Efficient solution in a system where a limited number of people share political and economic control and where the problems of the working class can be shunted off to the realm of Charity. That is once you restrict your horizon to "People That Matter" a whole lot falls into place. If we actually achieved the Norquist/Rove dream of rolling back the rulebook back to McKinley and the Gilded Age of the 1890s then Classical Economics starts having a little more one to one match with reality.

Which explains the rather odd panic and hysteria inherent Bryan Caplan's book title "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies" ably reviewed (dissected) by Chris Hayes Whos Afraid of Democracy

'What is in it for me?' is not only a legitimate economic question, it is the basis of any economic transaction. Moreover "What is in it for us?' is a perfectly legitimate political question, particularly in any market where one market participant has outsized pricing power. The Classical position is just to wave away the existence of the Elephant in the Room, 'Pricing power? What pricing power?'. As if the rest of us didn't live, work and shop in a world where power relations are manifest on all sides.

In a universal suffrage based electoral democracy questions of pragmatism and equity will naturally arise. And why shouldn't they? Classical economics has very little pushback against demands for Equity. They simply draw out Smith and Ricardo and try to apply them simplistically in a political environment that is very different. In the 19th Century differential pricing power was cemented into the political and economic structure, the Right People had control and represented the National Interest. Which is why the battle for suffrage was so bitter and prolonged and dominated so much of domestic UK politics. The powers that be knew exactly what was at stake.

[Lafayette]

evg: The point of individualism is that individuals interact with each other on a personal level.

You are misusing the word. The way in which you employ it is not "individualism".

Individualism versus collectivism is simply a decision by electors as to which prevails over the other. Do the rights of the individual prevail over that of the collectivity, or do the communal rights of the collective prevail over each of its individuals?

When you look at its application, it can go either way, depending upon the situation. But, when it is decided absolutely one or the other, either anarchy or autocracy is the consequence.

This explanation does not make what you say wrong. But, it ain't individualism. It is how individuals relate to one another.

Definition: individualism (noun)
1 - independence and self-reliance.
2 - a social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.

[James Killus]

Lafayette,

Uh, no, the word "individualism" has a far more varied history than that, and, as nearly as I can determine, predates the word "collectivism" by a goodly bit. It was originally used in opposition to "socialism" in the 18th century, and was a perjorative akin to "egoism" and "anarchism," both of which have their proponents who deny that such labels are perjorative.

In any case, there is no "simply" to be found in the matter.

The real acid test for anyone who favors an "individualist" philosophy of government is to inquire their stance on the limited liability corporation and the doctrine of the "corporate person." This is collectivist at its core (although I've occasionally referred to it as "aggretarian," the idea that groups of people have rights and privileges that are not derived from the aggregation of individual rights). The collective entity that is a corporation may undertake actions that benefit its shareholders (and, even more tellingly, its managers) that would create criminal and civil conspiracy charges absent the laws of incorporation and the doctrine of the corporate person.

It is possible to build an "individualist" philosophy on such a basis, provided one holds that such personages as Napoleon, Alexander, and Stalin were individualists, amassing vast personal power for their own, individual ends. Power worship does indeed have its place in the sun, and individuals do identify with the leader. But that makes a shambles of the moral claims for individualism, doesn't it?

I myself believe that limited liability can be a useful doctrine, but the "corporate person" is a dangerous construct that interferes with the proper regulation of corporate organizations. Whenever corporate "rights" are given important legal weight, the crushing of the rights of actual individuals is seldom distant.

[Gavin Kennedy]

It is at the famous ‘butcher, brewer, and baker’ paragraph that much of what is misunderstood about self-interest in Smith’s Works starts to go wrong.

Here is the famous quote:

‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, and the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interests. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.” ((WN I.ii.2: pp 26-7)

It is not clear to me in what manner the ‘price system’ makes an ‘error’ in these circumstances, nor why ‘the struggles of those tradesmen to make a living’ is relevant to the transaction, any more than the ‘struggles’ of customers in search of the items for their dinner within their budgets are relevant to the ‘butcher, the brewer, or the baker’.

As we are enjoined to address the interests of the ‘butcher, the brewer, or the baker’, so they are enjoined to consider their customer’s interests. It was never the case, either in Wealth Of Nations, nor in Smith’s earlier Lectures at Glasgow University (1751-64), or in the ‘Early Draft’ (1763), which discuss the same transaction in almost the same terms, that Smith enunciated a doctrine that people should act from their own self-interest only, as if that is the end of it.

Markets involve transactions between two or more independent parties, who also happen to be dependent on each other, to serve their own interests, but they can only do this by addressing the other party’s interests, not their own.

Economists, especially in recent generations, do not seem to have grasped this point, including Nobel Prize Winners like George Stigler, Kenneth Arrow and Paul Samuelson. I know this is a risky charge to make from a lowly retired economist who will never be on anybody’s very, very long list for such acclaim as we rightly give to the giants of our profession, but retirement does allow one to ‘live dangerously’.

In markets, the two parties arrive at their transaction from entirely different perspectives. The seller is conscious of the costs involved in coming to market with something to sell, and the buyer is conscious of wanting something to buy within a limited budget.

If the agreed price does not meet the seller’s costs, he may conclude the bargain on that occasion, but will probably adjust his behaviour next time round, including lowering unit costs or withdrawing from the market, or, of course, entering in some collusion or scheme to narrow the competition in the market (a point often made by Adam Smith).

If the agreed price does not meet the buyer’s aspirations, she may conclude the bargain on that occasion (the family have to eat their dinner), but will probably adjust her behaviour next time round by raising the funds allocated to dinners (cutting something elsewhere in her budget), or withdrawing from buying items ‘too expensive’ for her budget and subsituting cheaper items, or seek another outlet where the competition among sellers impels them to lower their prices (a point often made by Smith when discussing the distorting effects of monopoly and protectionist behaviours and how they lead to ‘wrong’ allocations of capital).

But overall bargains are transacted by starting from different solutions to the same price problem (buyers wanting lower prices than sellers offer; sellers wanting higher prices than buyers demand); they may arrive at a solution that has a single price acceptable for both at that time and place.

The most efficacious way to arrive at that single solution is by conditional bargaining: ‘give me that that I want and you shall have this that you want’ (WN I.ii.2: p 26, which is only two lines before the ‘butcher, the brewer, or the baker’, enters the discussion.

The process of bargaining (completely ignored by John Nash’s 1950 paper, another Nobel Prize winner, assumes away the process by which prices are formed, and identifies the ‘ideal’ outcome only), involves each party mediating their self-interests by addressing not their own self interests, but by addressing each other’s.

Understanding this, as Smith wrote it and meant it, resolves Kenneth Arrow’s angst about the ‘errors’ of the price system. To the extent that individuals behave as if their self-interests are paramount in bargained transactions they make the process of negotiation a stressful and more difficult exchange that it needs to be.

Thirty years of observing, training and consulting with thousands of negotiators in the real world (not students playing games) has confirmed to me that Smith understood the price process much better than most economists understand it over 200 years later. Perhaps they read Wealth Of Nations too quickly? More likely, they cnanot model the bargaining process, so they have left the dark alley for the lamplit pavement

[Lafayette]

GK: To the extent that individuals behave as if their self-interests are paramount in bargained transactions they make the process of negotiation a stressful and more difficult exchange that it needs to be.

Smith relates the rudimentary aspects of markets. His point of observation was a time when markets were simple affairs, in town/village centers where people knew and trusted one another.

His explanation of the mechanism has lived down through the centuries, because it was correct. But, was it whole? I think not.

Smith could not imagine that markets would be a place where not only individuals transacted but millions of individuals transact. Neither could he imagine that many people would disrespect his simple mechanism spurned on by a "want to have" with no consideration for the "need to have". (I refer to conspicuous consumption.)

I think we have lost Smith's simple perspective on market transactions, trying to make macroeconomic sense of market functions mathematically. Markets have changed because humans have changed. Their needs are the same, but their wants are very different. And then, Smith did not understand the propensity to consume could be altered by credit, since credit did not exist.

So, we must take from Smith the "spirit" of what he wrote, but not necessarily the "letter" of his writing.

And, only God knows what economists will think about market mechanisms 400 years from now ... they might think Keynes a a bit simple. But, in such a long run, who cares ... ?

[Anon]

So markets are immoral....what do we do instead that is any more moral? Why isn't that discussed?

[Gavin Kennedy]

‘when markets were simple affairs, in town/village centers where people knew and trusted one another’

True, up to a point. But, jumping to: ‘markets would be a place where not only individuals transacted but millions of individuals transact’ is quite a stretch, if you imply that this is somehow different from markets all over Europe in Smith’s days, and roughly from since around the 16th century, when millions of people in fact transacted for their daily needs.

Each pair of bargainers transacted as set out by Smith in my comment. Looking at transactions today at the highest level too, negotiations come down to pairs, or often teams, including advisors, doing exactly the same as Smith suggested. True, in consumer markets, modern retailing is mostly ‘price selection’ – it would take too long each day to negotiate every single item in the purchase set for each rich country individual today, but in the long supply chains behind these purchases (think of Smith’s description of the chains that cooperate to produce the common labourer’s rough woolen coat [WN I.i.11: pp 22-24]) it’s Smithian business as usual.

In finance and money markets, transactions are often auction-bid rather than exchange under conditional propositions, and that is a modern phenomenon. In all else, Smith’s observation holds true.
‘Smith could not imagine that markets would be a place where not only individuals transacted but millions of individuals transact. Neither could he imagine that many people would disrespect his simple mechanism spurned on by a "want to have" with no consideration for the "need to have". (I refer to conspicuous consumption.)’
I think you will find that Smith had a great deal to say about ‘a "want to have" with no consideration for the "need to have" world. See, for starters, Smith on utility in Moral Sentiments (TMs IV.1-11: pp 179-87) and his analysis of the dénouement of feudal powers, in which he wrote of the obsession of possessing, ‘baubles, trinkets, diamond buckles’ for the ‘gratification of the most childish, the meanest and the most sordid of all vanities’ (WN III.iv.10: p 418), which ended feudalism. Read these and see Smith’s panoramic scope.
Lastly, you say that ‘Markets have changed because humans have changed. Their needs are the same, but their wants are very different’. The same could be said at every stage of human change; 18th century British people consumed entirely different ranges of products compared to the people present when the Roman legions arrived. Compare New Yorkers to Amazonian residents today. Humans basically don’t change from access to wider choices or to credit; Consumerist Romans borrowed on credit; landed aristocrats in Europe did so too. You are making distinctions without differences.

[reason]

Anon...
surely it is "markets are amoral" not "markets are immoral".

[Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD]

Sir

How do we talk of privet equity when the rein of the equity and the judiciary system is placed in the notes of the Balance sheet or the addendum?

My I have the stage on this so called equity?

I read the book on THE WORLD IS FLAT by Thomas Friedman, I read Paul’s “DEATH of ECONOMICS”.
Now tell me what is this?

Libby Scooter is culprit. That is what the jury and the judge says. Comes Mr. Bush with his magic wand VET and says the sentence is too harsh. So pardon him. The senate understands the difference between the gold and the copper or bronze plated lie. They cry foul. Mr. Bush says Scooter Libby is guilty.
In two seating of the juries. One day guilty, next day in the cooler he goes.
Now where are we? Globalization? Forget this. Mr. Bush has failed the continent and got rids of Tony Blaire and tries to be friends with Putin.

Boy the headliners are terrific.
Do we have more then 24 hours a day and more the 12 months in a year we would go bananas.
Honest. This is crazy. Just that.

I thank you.

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa.

[Lafayette]

GK : But, jumping to: ‘markets would be a place where not only individuals transacted but millions of individuals transact’ is quite a stretch, if you imply that this is somehow different from markets all over Europe in Smith’s days, and roughly from since around the 16th century, when millions of people in fact transacted for their daily needs.

First of all, it isn’t a “stretch” as much as a “continual evolution”. After all, when Smith made his observations, money was probably as commonly employed in a transaction as barter – particularly in the countryside. Market mechanisms were still evolving.

I am simply putting myself in his shoes, that of a person observing a market in a local context. The millions of people transacting daily at the time, though true, was limited
In a mosaic fashion to local contexts. I suggest that it is only remotely related to the “global village” of today, particularly as regards consumers.

Anyway, none of this detracts from what you said originally, which I find for the most part true. I agree with you that, in order to “better understand” market mechanisms,
economists get lost in the forest, where they cannot distinguish it from the trees.

And, that will still be true 400 years from now. It’s human nature to attempt a new way of explaining something that has already been explained but does not “seem” adapted to a modern context, when indeed it is.

Smith explained the market transaction mechanism in its essence. Most of the rest since then is intellectual embroidery.

[Lafayette]

GK: In all else, Smith’s observation holds true.

In substance, yes, but, no, not in “all else”.

As I mentioned, consumer credit extends what consumer perceives to be their budget. This leveraging affect is fictitious, but it does determine how the consumer behaves within the market mechanism.

Smith insisted that people purchase according to their budget. He did not conceive of consumer credit that leverages further disposable income. But, is debt income? I say, no, it is not and should not be considered such even though it is employed in such a manner.

But that is the trap that modern consumers fall into. (Just look at the sub-prime “market mechanism” as a typical example of the debt-trap. Abracadabra, today a property is “yours”. Bingo! tomorrow it it’s the bank’s property! ) So, the market mechanism, as Smith viewed it, has been tampered with.

The point, I think, is this. The “budget” that determines a consumer’s participation within the market mechanism is altered. Consumers convince themselves that they have a budget that exists at one moment and disappears the next. That is what credit does. It creates a fictitious budget.

Now, does that simple evolution “change substantially” Smiths depiction of the market mechanism. I say it does. I can guess what you will say.

So, go ahead, say it … ;^) That’s what debates are for!

NB: Nobody “wins” a debate here. We are simply airing different points of view for the general edification of all who participate. Welcome aboard.

[Lafayette]

JK: In any case, there is no "simply" to be found in the matter.

This may be an "American perspective" on the word. But, may I suggest that it suffers from a lack of "objectivity".

I live in a world where collectivism is not only a "thought", but the word itself is of common usage. A regional entity can be referred to, and is referred to as a "collectivity".

This has much more than a geographical representation in European political thought, to my mind. Europe looks, in some areas, to the welfare of the community as prevailing over the rights of the individual.

This gives rise to "simple" contexts, for instance, Education and Health Care, which are starkly different between Europe and the US. In the US, post-secondary education and health care are supposedly "matters of individual choice". In Europe, they are considered Public Services that should be afforded to all. (In fact, they are largely free, but the proportion that consumers pay is growing as finally the strain on national budgets takes its toll.)

Your historical perspective is interesting, but permit me to say that it has no or little relevance today in America.

The proof is in the pudding. (Alas, gastronomy is another debate! ;^)

[Gavin Kennedy]

Hi Lafayette

I am an educator not a point-scoring politician or a 'man of system', so I am happy to call this a discourse.

However, you generalise about credit as if it was invented in the consumer society. History is replete with borrowing and credit; it was in Smith's day (and Caesar's)

It is true that the mass of labourers did not have access to credit, hence the number of 'amateur' prostitutes in Edinburgh and London at that time. But the upper reaches of society had access to credit and for some proportion it fed their consumption. Debtors jails were full of these early victims of 'consumerism', with transportation and indentured service imposed on debtors.

Smith spoke wisely about people getting into debt, and the dangers for them in pledging their property, including inheritances, as security. He called them 'prodigals' and waxed eloquently on their fates. He also made many donations to distant relatives from his own funds for those who got into trouble with creditors and bank failures.

People today who pledge their property face the same fate. Much credit is easy, perhaps too easy, but for the majority of consumer borrowers, this is respectable business. For miscreants it is bad news and often for their creditors too, the restitution in foregone prperty seldom paying backthe ful amount owed. Your image of these situations being different from the 18th century is, as I said, a stretch.

I live in Edinburgh, Scotland (I pass almost everyday along the High Street where Smith lived and worked . It doesn't look much different physically from how it looked in his time, nor do I believe the people are much different at root. We do not share the same perspective on history, or human behaviour, but otherwise it has been a pleasure to discourse with you about such things.

[Lafayette]

GK: History is replete with borrowing and credit; it was in Smith's day (and Caesar's)

Indeed it was, but not as consumer credit. Subtle difference, that.

Have they erected the statue to Smith outside his house?

PS: I once knew a Kennedy from the Gorbals of Glasgow. Tough as nails, he was.

[paine]

gabe

like most atomic thinkers

a formal analytic
toy world model
might help you past
your "coase non nostra "
purblinding

its always wise
to read past uncle milty
and his political acolytes
at least
until you get to
20-30 year old stuff like
the critiques of
free horizontal
and independent market systems
in say
greenwald stiglitz
and
arnott stiglitz

since both "theorems "
are co authored by joe stiglitz
and you may not be really math qualified
for the originals
read his popular takes in whither socialism
....carefully
and ...think

then for hope
read former collaborator
dixit's
unanswered test questions on "magnitude "

[James Killus]

Lafayette,

When I say that there is no "simply" to be found in the matter, I mean in your willingness to blame the differences between (for example), European and American health care systems on "individualism" vs "collectivism." What I was attempting to show (and you did not address my discourse) is that the American system is not "individualistic," unless, as I noted, one believes that massive, collective, authoritarian systems where there are a favored few at the top are somehow "individualist."

Because that is what has occurred in the United States, masquerading as "individualism." But to say that Three-card Monte is a "game of chance" is historically, philosophically, and "objectively" incorrect. Moreover, to grant the con men their covering lies up front helps perpetuate the con. Hence my objection to your simple (actually, it is simplistic) characterization.

There are better ways to skin that cat.

[Lafayette]

JK: What I was attempting to show (and you did not address my discourse) is that the American system is not "individualistic," unless, as I noted, one believes that massive, collective, authoritarian systems where there are a favored few at the top are somehow "individualist."

Let's understand what is meant by "individualism" as it is practiced in America. By this word is meant the fact that what elsewhere is regarded as a public service, in America it is felt to be the responsibility of the individual.

Meaning health care is a matter of each individual to find by working for the right company. If you can't find it, tough - that's your problem. There is NO safety net.

This is very far from the collectivist notion that Health Care is a public service to be assured/guaranteed by the state. Ditto university educations.

So, no, I cannot accept that America is not "individualistic", not by any stretch of the imagination - because it is the one nation with the largest personal freedom on earth. This is to its great benefit. You have to live elsewhere to see how personal initiative, will and freedom to act can be severely circumscribed by governments.

But, as regards Health Care and Post-secondary schooling (university or professional training) this kind of "individualism" is wrongheaded. Like defense, or security, or justice; these two services mentioned are squarely the business of the state - they are birthrights and not simply "options".

[James Killus]

Lafayette: You have to live elsewhere to see how personal initiative, will and freedom to act can be severely circumscribed by governments.

Perhaps you have to have had a different set of experiences to see how little difference there is between the circumscription of personal initiative, will, and freedom to act caused by governments and that caused by corporations which have governments at their beck and call.

My sense is that what the U.S. has to offer is "venue shopping," and that is the product of federalism, not American "individualism." If an American dislikes his circumstances, he will move to some other venue that he believes improves his lot. In any case, your statements are still consistent with the idea of "individualism" as being the freedom to fight for control of large groups of people. The same may be said of an Afghani warlord, and I mean no offense to either CEO's nor Afghani warlords.

But then, perhaps you have to have grown up in the southern U.S. to understand how personal initiative, will, and freedom to act can be severely circumscribed by one's neighbors and the local customs.

I also note that I've spent enough time in Canada to have formed the opinion that the Canadians do not lack personal initiative, will, and freedom to act, despite their health care system. Perhaps this is because they can always come south, and the U.S. is not so picky about those crossing its northern border as those crossing the southern one.

[Lafayette]

JK: But then, perhaps you have to have grown up in the southern U.S. to understand how personal initiative, will, and freedom to act can be severely circumscribed by one's neighbors and the local customs.

I make a difference between Liberty and liberties (small "l").

Most countries tout proudly that their republics are free of tyranny and that the democratic process assures Liberty to all. If you would like the similar expression for "Give me Liberty or give me death" in French, I can furnish it.

But, when it comes to small liberties, like the acceptance of ethnic individuals, or the fact that a woman gets paid 20% less than a man, or that I have a ton of paperwork to fill out in order to get permission to create a company and that I have to pay monstrous social charges just to open the doors of my company - well these are the small liberties that are not available to me in France.

The fact that my son will not get into the top (private) schools of France because I didn't go to that school is another small liberty that I will never have. The fact that anyone over 45 finds it doubly difficult to find a job, a simple prejudice based upon age, is another small injustice that I must live with. (Despite the fact that age discrimination is clearly against the law.)

All these personal injustices, which are the lack of freedom to act, are also very much in force in France. But, frankly, these are all a matter of personal prejudices - in this collective society.

It has nothing, really, to do with Individualism. Collectivism is the matter of a nation believing that the state nationally and the community locally should do assure certain services for them - and taxes should be higher in order to assume the cost of those services.

Which is why taxes ARE higher here than the US, by as much as 20% of the GDP. France is running at a rate of 46% of GDP and Sweden at 53%. (Yes, all taxes are accounted for in GDP calculations. Have a look.)

[James Killus]

Layfayette, if your intention was to confuse me, you certainly managed it. The only "small liberty" in the list you mention that seems to differ significantly between France and the U.S. is the ease of starting a business.

In any rate, you seem to have decided that one may determine relative amounts of "collectivism" vs "individualism" by the amount of taxation and the relative amount of GDP that is represented by a nation's government's spending. As nearly as I am able to tell, that means that the most "individualist" nations on Earth are Paraguay, Guatemala, and Rwanda.

[Lafayette]

JK: you seem to have decided that one may determine relative amounts of "collectivism" vs "individualism" by the amount of taxation and the relative amount of GDP that is represented by a nation's government's spending.

Those are good indications. But, there are other attributes.

Or, maybe we should define words/meanings before discussing them?

[James Killus]

Lafayette, to quote from your link: "This article needs additional references or sources for verification."

In any case, my point, from the beginning has been that you are dealing at a level of abstraction where things may appear to be simple, when the less abstracted levels of fact and observation suggest that they are not.

[Lafayette]

JK: "This article needs additional references or sources for verification."

Oh, bollocks. You're pissing in the wind.

These are well accepted notions and employed in the treatment of cultural diversity. I employ them in courses.

Never mind. This rat hole is boring.

you are dealing at a level of abstraction ... when the less abstracted levels of fact and observation suggest that they are not.

Oh, wow ... the academic refuge of those who either don't know or aren't sufficiently courageous to discover.

"Abstraction = something that exists only as an idea." OK, I'm the abstraction. Are you a Happy Camper, now?

Over & Out.

[James Killus]

Well, I'm sorry to see I've so pissed you off, Lafayette. I brought up the "additional references or sources" point because the article does, indeed, give the standard usage of "collectivism," which I have been trying to tell you is part of an essentially misguided debate. That debate depends on "magic words" like "government," "private enterprise," and the like, to gloss over the simple fact that large organizations are "collective," while those who use the word "collectivist" in the conventional (misguided) sense, only allow its use for governments.

And the government of Paraguay has less than 1/3 the taxation and proportion of government spending to the economy as the U.S. while the U.S. and France differ by only a few percent. You use conventional wisdom very selectively, which is to say that you use it conventionally.

But monarchy is not "individualist," no matter how charismatic the monarch, how many knights compete in the tourney for his favor, or even whether he is called a CEO.

[wjd123]

As for the substantial point... As Thatcher pointed out, there's no society, only individuals. There's no "society's wellbeing". Only individual wellbeing. And the price systems is exactly a mechanism for the coordination of individual interests....

Moral choice is individual choice. Moral puzzles are not trivial and misrepresenting free market thinkers (which is clearly what Robinson does) is unfortunate.--Gabriel M.

Gabriel,

It true that society doesn't exist anthropomorphically. It doesn't think or feel. Only individuals can do that. Yet society does have an objective existence which can't be ignored. It can be studied and analyzed. Break its norms and there is a price to be paid. It existed objectively before us and will exist objectively after us. It's store of knowledge informs us, and makes us more then we could ever be without it. Individuals through their socialization internalize its customs, its language, its ideals.

Today we speak of public opinion, would Thatcher take a public opinion poll indicating she was ahead of her rival for prime minister by 10 percentage points and then refuse to use it because public opinion doesn't exist; only individual opinion exists. She could always say that the individual opinions of 3,000 diverse voters prefer my candidacy. But that's a mouth full. Besides it's customary to speak of public opinion poles today without any fear of being accused of social antropomology. People understand what is meant by the words "public opinion."

One of the rules of the sociological method is that "the determining cause of a social fact must be sought among antecedent social facts and not among the states of individual consciousness." What Durkheim's rule does is to delineate the sociological from the psychological dimensions of reality. I don't know in what context Thatcher was making her observation but its a banal one unless she was trying to deny the existence of society. In which case, she could be accused of psychological reductionism.

The sum total of individual interests does not equal society. There are ideals and bonds that the market place couldn't put a price on.

What it cost to equip, train, house, cloth, feed, and bury a soldier can be accounted for to the last penny. But what about devotion to duty, courage, or love of country, how does the price mechanism coordinate these ideals? When I was in the Army I had a Captain who I greatly respected. His actions demanded my respect. There was no price that could have demanded it, only his actions.

So, even though society can't think or feel it does exist objectively and we are confronted with its objectivity every day. And there is certainly more to society than individual interests, price, and the market place. Even the market place has its rules and regulations that we are compelled to obey. Rules and regulations that we are not free to set aside as we please. Rules and regulations that Prime Minister Thatcher swore to enforce even it they weren't to her liking.

[Firozali A. Mulla]

Warren Buffett lunch bid tops $70,000 can you give me a better deal than this one. As in recent years, the winner and up to seven friends may dine with the world's second-richest person at the Smith & Wollensky steakhouse in New York.
China's economy is headed in the right direction but the foundations of the recovery are not yet solid, a Chinese central bank official said on Tuesday, adding to a chorus of voices cautioning against expectations of a rapid rebound from the global crisis. The world economy is struggling with the lingering effects of the collapse of the U.S. housing market last year, with access to credit still tight, companies and consumers reluctant to spend and job losses mounting.
The U.S. unemployment rate is likely to hit 10 percent in the next couple of months, a White House spokesman said on Monday. While we have here, some eating the steak at $70,000.00 and Obama on the Gas burps to make the Methane cheap One contributor to global warming — bigger than coal mines, landfills and sewage treatment plants — is being left out of efforts by the Obama administration and House Democrats to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Cow burps.
Belching from the nation's 170 million cattle, sheep and pigs produces about one-quarter of the methane released in the U.S. each year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That makes the hoofed critters the largest source of the heat-trapping gas.
Iran's Economy Needs More Than A Vote
But booting out Ahmadinejad would be a good start.
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla

[Firozali A. Mulla]

Gordon Brown in UK and the thieves in the parliament. UK?
In Allah, I believe if I lie in the name of father may he roast in the hell. This is why the Muslims never lie in the name of father or never even say. If my father were here, he would tell me to do this thing. He is not here is dead so we do not want to call him in the middle of the night to testify my wrongs. He will have or has his punishments for lying plenty or awards for doing well that I have not done. I will get the same hell or heaven (I doubt this) is doing worst. We never swear in the name of God, Holy Bible or anything. If we are right, people know that and us is we are. Those who tell lots fibs need the oaths.
Yes. Let us talk of speakers? Shall we?
Speaker To Restore Trust. Is there no trust now that we have stolen more then we can digest?
You must be joking. Look at what we have now. What did we have? The biggest joke. You want any more USA explanations. We fell for the tricks of yellow sticky tape and powder by Colin Powel, Andrew Gilligan, and our leader Tony Blaire who now wants to dance behind the curtain but pull the puppets in the front, laugh and he is vomiting the sand to us. Do you like this scene? The nation now looks to amateurs rather than artistes for its entertainments.
Second jobs ... Baroness Warsi, Eric Pickles and Oliver Letwin
Shadow Commons leader Mr Duncan has quit as a company director and a consultancy he ran has ceased trading.
International aid secretary Andrew Mitchell has quit seven lucrative directorships and shadow housing minister Grant Shapps has resigned from a publishing firm.
Three members of David Cameron's Shadow Cabinet yesterday failed to answer The Sun's queries about their second jobs.
Private work ... Patricia Hewitt, Jeremy Hunt and Adam Ingram
Blair was involved in Iraq inquiry talks, minister says
Here is another reason I would definitely like to come to UK. You see we have very tight security Gitmo like camps and the parliament in UK accept all sort of members, thieves including. My idea is if no one objects to my propositions and no malice to any, to come and appoint myself to the seat of speakers. The UK papers are very happy about the changes. Will you test my abilities and can you propose me. The cartoons of your papers depict the lunatics to the core. Hail Hitler. I love that sort of country as all have no money but in UK, I can steal.
Brown seeks to quell row with 'openness' pledge. It has been decided. We will have all these in the camera. Allah knows what that is.
My idea is if no one objects to my propositions and no malice to any, to come and appoint myself to the seat of speakers. The UK papers are very happy about the changes. Will you test my abilities and can you propose me. The cartoons of your papers depict the lunatics to the core. I love that sort of country as all have no money but in UK, I can steal.
eleemosynary
PRONUNCIATION:
(el-uh-MOS-uh-ner-ee, el-ee-, -MOZ-)
MEANING:
adjective: Relating to charity.
ETYMOLOGY:
From Latin eleemosynarius, from eleemosyna (alms), from Greek eleemosyne (pity, charity), from eleemon (pitiful), from eleos (pity).
USAGE:
"The Guzmans started their non-profit organization, Path of Hope Foundation, 18 years ago. Their single goal: to care for the poor who live near their corner. The Thanksgiving dinner is one of their eleemosynary events."
Lynn Seeden; Free Thanksgiving Dinner Feeds 1,400; Orange County Register (Santa Ana, California); Dec 4, 2003.
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
To freely bloom - that is my definition of success. -Gerry Spence, lawyer (b. 1929)
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla