but as adam smith can tell discipline above all is what we require to be freed. this is no small problem for the case for capitalism. so what happened? in part as a smith surely understated the challenges of sustaining moral norms and economic dynamism. his expectations rested on the assumption of what to us seems like exceptional social and moral consensus but to him was the reality of british life in 18th-century. the loss of that consensus about no small part by capitalist economy itself. it is a defining factor american life in the 21st century and the challenge of sustaining the way of life in light of that loss is a defining problem of our political economy. and economics of growth and ethic of restraint and for an awkward match in this disappointing sales of the markets are not enough to bridge the gaps. the very least, smith was mistaken to assume capitalism could produce sufficient moral authority to sustain itself. such authority would have to come from more traditional, moral and cultural institutions beyond the market and our case for capitalism must t

you have to read adam smith to note that there is nothing more dangerous than when corporations get together and say is we're not going to get it through competition but try to go through the state. host: in chicago, janet on the democratic line. caller: this is a question for mr. raskin. upc touch on what i would consider -- you briefly touched on what i would consider the conservative judicial activism, as far as overturning the laws. in question has to do with -- my

but as adam smith can tell discipline above all is what we require to be freed. this is no small problem for the case for capitalism. so what happened? in part as a smith surely understated the challenges of sustaining moral norms and economic dynamism. his expectations rested on the assumption of what to us seems like exceptional social and moral consensus but to him was the reality of british life in 18th-century. the loss of that consensus about no small part by capitalist economy itself. it is a defining factorrbrb @ @ institutions. for the family and religion and tradition. democratic cabalism as at its best is never an easy match but one well worth sustaining. but in heard we also corrupted smith's vision of capitalism in ways that undermine precisely its civilizing powers and make it increasingly difficult to reap the benefits of the market system as we correct its deficiencies. the morrill features of his political economy is democratic or popular character and it's disappointing effect have been under assault in our time. the first especially by a growing

so that's sort of two strikes for adam smith. what i also discovered? smith, he was actually very skeptical of some elements of the free market, especially bankers, which i had never seen. he described a bank in scotland which lent money to local business men, and little schemes that didn't have any basis to them. the went south, couldn't repay their loans, the bank went bankrupt, and threw the entire local economy into recession, which is actually what happened on a global scale. so smith said, because of that, even though he was in general against -- generally laissez-faire, he made an exception for banking, and i will read a quote from him which sort of shocked me when i read it. he said -- he said such regulations may no doubt be considered in some respects a violation of natural liberty but these exertions of natural liberty might endanger society and ought to be restrained by the laws of government. the obligation of building party walls to prevent the communication of fire is a violation of natural liberty, as well as violations of the banking tra

the core of adam smith's argument bourne out by two century of evidence is that such micromanagement concentration of power is neither nor efficient and benevolent than the market. in the wealth of nations, smith was scornful of the state of the -- of the statesman who imagines he can get it right noting that, quote, he seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranged the different pieces upon a chessboard. he does not consider that the pieces on the chessboard have no other principle of motion upon which the hand impresses on him but on the great chessboard of human society every single piece has a principle of motion of its own all together different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon him. legislators just can't know enough and can't sufficiently avoid the influence of political motives and interests to micromanage the market successfully. but the technocratic itch approximatess because capitalism can never be tidy enough to satisfy the deep progressive urge for rational control. this is a

so that is sort of two strikes for adam smith. but, what i also discovered in smith which i hadn't realized is he was actually skeptical of the free market. especially bankers, which for some reason i have never seen referred to anywhere. he actually has a section where he describes a local bank in scotland where he was from which led to money-- to much money to the local businessmen and then went out and lots of local businessmen would have they scheme which didn't have any basis to them. they went south and couldn't repay their loans. the bank went bankrupt and to the entire local economy into recession-- recession. which is what happened on a global scale and the last couple of years so smith said because of that, even though he was in general against, a generally in favor of laissez-faire lead the market to that market devices he made an exception for banking and i will read a quote from him which as they say sort of shocked me when i read it. he said he favored banking regulatory. such regulation meneau dep become some respect

smith new this arrangement would not be under management it is just too complicated like this teacher adam ferguson smith was and is the fascinated by the intentions motivating our actions and those consequences. rather than by coercion it would be accomplished in a general way through for bad establish rules of the game intended to draw self-interest to people toured these it needs without forcing particular outcomes. smith made the case for the general approach and four years later his lectures on jurisprudence with social arms created this way it is formalized into specific areas. he collected and expanded the portions of those lectures with labor and commerce into a book about political economy caldwell the nation's and published in that fateful year of great ideas for growth economics was just one element but a particularly important one. as a good liberal he's thought it would be at the center of moral philosophy and bob welch was a precondition recant care for others if we ourselves are hungry. it required a developed economic teaching built around institutional arrangements that co

you just have to read adam smith to know that there is nothing dangerous when corp.n. corp. said, you know what, we can make more money spending on campaigns that we can make producing something or being involved in an honest market competition. caller: you briefly touched on what i would consider conservative judicial activism as far as overturning the laws congress has made. but my main question has to do with what about multinational corporations and how would this in fact affect for our company is incorporated. halliburton. guest: fantasticÑi question. if you want to see democratic populism, you will want to see that unleashed by this decision. the supreme court just determined that corporations, whether they are domestically or foreign owned, controlled by foreign or domestic entities, have a constitutional right to spend money. and it absolutely is true. you read the decision, the supreme court makes no decision at all. they ask somebody to come later and use the law to target foreign corporations. when you breached the line between real life situations and cor

that is -- the social scientist in scotland, adam smith and david hume and lord homan are looking for these kinds of feelings. that remains a strong liberal element. can't we just love one another? can't we just get along? the rodney king line. can't we all just get along? that feeling is very strong liberal feeling. it originates back in this period. jefferson is the supreme spokesman for it. he believes every person no matter how uneducated, no matter how poor, has this inherent moral and social sense and that is what makes him despite his slave holding such a supreme apostle for democracy. we are not wrong when we celebrate jefferson even though he was an aristocratic slaveholder. he nonetheless believed that every person had this feeling--hamilton thought that was hot water but jefferson said ask a common and a professor a moral question and nine out of ten times the plowman will get it right and a professor will get it wrong. there is a source of anti intellectualism in american life. professors get caught up in abstractions and so on and a plowman just feel. it just comes from h

put they receive in a letter to mattie who would then hand it to abigail but if you write abigail adams smith, the vice president's daughter you cannot frank the mail. franking is, congress can still do this, they signed a letter and don't have to pay the postage. in those days the postage was paid by the person receiving this mail so it the letter was sent directly to mattie then she would have to pay postage and at the gil was way too frugal for that so merry kranz was to take this receipt put it in a letter to mattie smith then put that inside of that letter to john adams said john adams would receive a letter and open it into see it is actually daughter from my daughter and he would give it to my daughter who would see it is a receive intended for a mother and give it to abigail. [laughter] as i said she kind of kept the use of this-of money secret from john butchey didn't totally keep it a secret from john and i want to read to you from a letter she wrote to john in december of 1783 and i going to receive-- refer to this same form. this is when the farm first came on the market and she k

because, you know, he was somebody who formally, i'm sure he never read adam smith. the invisible hand. and he firmly believed that, you know, it's almost my duty as a citizen, you pursue your interest. and you fight for them. and he thought that's what everybody should do. but one the acceptions of that is he is deeply patriotic. and he named, he had three sons, he named them after his heroes. george washington, william henry heir harrison, and camela. when the civil war came around, he tried to give his largest steam ship to the union navy. the secretary said no, nobody thoughts war was going to last that long. he wasn't going to have the expensive ship. it was going to be a white elephant for the navy. so he ended up being forced, actually, against his will to it lease it for very large sums to the war department. complicated story that will have the free market people shaking their heads. because it really was a crazy result. but from the mermac sinks all of the human ships. of course we all know the monitor came down. battles twisted in still. the standard versi

you have to read adam smith to note that there is nothing more dangerous than when corporations get together and say is we're not going to get it through competition but try to go through the state. host: in chicago, janet on the democratic line. caller: this is a question for mr. raskin. upc touch on what i would consider -- you briefly touched on what i would consider the conservative judicial activism, as far as overturning the laws. in question has to do with -- my main question has to do with what about multinational corporations, how does this affect where a company is incorporated? i believe halliburton has moved to i believe the united arab emirates. guest: fantastic question. if you want to see democratic populism, watch the populism unleashed by this decision. a supreme court judge determined that corporations, with a domestically owned or foreign- owned -- the supreme court just determine that corporations, whether domestically owned or for eign owned -- they make no distinction at all -- perhaps some can come back later and passed a law. when you reach the line between real life

complex nature of vanderbilts because you know he was somebody who firmly -- and sure he never read adam smithbut he firmly and believed in the invisible hand. everybody pursues their own interests as fiercely as possible. and he firmly believes that, you know, it's almost my duty as a citizen, you pursue your interest and decide for them. and he thought that's what everybody should do. but one of the exceptions to that if he was patriotic. ante up three sons. and he named them as i put it after his heroes, george washington, william henry harrison, and cornelius vanderbilt. so when the civil war came around he tried to give his largest steamship, which had cost them nearly a million dollars. he tried to give it to the union navy. and the secretary of the navy said no. he didn't think the war would last that long, you're never been on this expensive show. it's going to be a white element for the navy. he said no. and so vanderbilts ended up being forced actually against his will to lease it for very large sums to the war department, complicated story that will have the free market people shaki

you have to read adam smith to note that there is nothing more dangerous than when corporations get together say is we're not going to get it through competition but try to go through the state. host: in chicago, janet on the democratic line. caller: this is a question for mr. raskin. upc touch on what i would consider -- you briefly touched on what i would consider the conservative judicial activism, as far as overturning the laws. in question has to do with -- my main question has to do with what about multinational corporations, how does this affect where a company is incorporated? i believe halliburton has moved to i believe the united arab emirates. guest: fantastic question. if you want to see democratic populism, watch the populism unleashed by this decision. a supreme court judge determined that corporations, with a domestically owned or foreign- owned -- the supreme court just determine that corporations, whether domestically owned or for eign owned -- they make no distinction at all -- perhaps some can come back later and passed a law. when you reach the line between real life citi

the core of adam smith's argument for not by two centuries of evidence is that such micromanagement and concentration of power is neither more efficient work and practice more benevolent than the market. in the wealth of nations, smith was scornful the statesman who imagined so he could get it just right noting that, quote he seems to imagine he can arrange the different members of the great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chessboard. he does not consider the pieces in the chest board of know the principal of motion besides that which the hand and presses on it that in the great chessboard of human society every single piece as a principal of motion of its own altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. legislators can't know enough yet can't sufficiently of the influence of political motives and interest to micromanage the market successfully. but the technocratic age persists because capitalism can never be tidy enough to satisfy the deep progressive urge for rational control. this is an old story. th