7 ms·

What is shady about them? Are they criminals?

schmidtleonard 2y ago
Their agenda is to frame the self-serving interests of a very narrow group as the economic interests of everyone. That's shady.
- cherrycherry98 2y ago
  Depending on the specifics, that sounds congruent with some of Adam Smith's economic theories so it's not surprising to see such arguments used, especially if some of the authors are from the Adam Smith Institute. His whole invisible hand metaphor is about society advancing as a whole from agents acting in their self interest. It's more likely a sincerely held belief than an attempt at misdirection.
  - moomin 2y ago
    I doubt Adam Smith would agree with anything the Adam Smith Institute says.
  - ninalanyon 2y ago
    Adam Smith is probably spinning in his grave. > His whole invisible hand metaphor is about society advancing as a whole from agents acting in their self interest. That theory is predicated on the market being composed of buyers and sellers of broadly similar financial power. This is no longer the case in most markets, certainly not in the UK as far as ordinary people or most small companies are concerned.
    - schmidtleonard 2y ago
      Yes. Markets pursue the interest of wealth-weighted humans, not evenly-weighted humans. Disguising "wealth weighted value" under the concept of "value" (which, colloquially, has a more even weight) is the propaganda coup of the century.
pch00 2y ago
Led By Donkeys' exposure of the Truss mini-budget and the Adam Smith Institute involvement is enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRDLIOME47c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRDLIOME47c
PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
If you consider tanking the UK economy to the tune of hundreds of millions if not billions of pounds, then yes, absolutely.
- throwaway48540 2y ago
  How could they possibly do that?
  - grumpy_coder 2y ago
    They are referring to the liz truss budget.
    - throwaway48540 2y ago
      So it is the elected representatives who are responsible for choosing them and implementing whatever they suggested?
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        Being elected doesn't remove your obligations to follow sane, moral policies.
        throwaway48540 2y ago
        That's my point. Crazy economists are not responsible for the damage, it's the elected people who listened to them and followed through. To create an intentionally extreme parallel, imagine they have chosen a group of idk, satanists. Would you blame the group of satanists for being satanists, or the people in charge of a country who contacted a group of satanists for advice?
        ninalanyon 2y ago
        Surely you blame both? Being consistently evil and living up (or down?) to ones reputation for evil doesn't make one less evil.
rjsw 2y ago
They refuse to say who funds them.
GordonAShumway 2y ago
Hats. The fedoras they wear shades their faces from view, m’lady
nmadden 2y ago
As rjsw says, they refuse to disclose who funds them. See https://www.monbiot.com/2022/10/07/thinktanking-the-country/ https://www.monbiot.com/2022/10/07/thinktanking-the-country/ for some background.

Their agenda is to frame the self-serving interests of a very narrow group as the economic interests of everyone. That's shady.

cherrycherry98 2y ago
Depending on the specifics, that sounds congruent with some of Adam Smith's economic theories so it's not surprising to see such arguments used, especially if some of the authors are from the Adam Smith Institute. His whole invisible hand metaphor is about society advancing as a whole from agents acting in their self interest. It's more likely a sincerely held belief than an attempt at misdirection.
- moomin 2y ago
  I doubt Adam Smith would agree with anything the Adam Smith Institute says.
- ninalanyon 2y ago
  Adam Smith is probably spinning in his grave. > His whole invisible hand metaphor is about society advancing as a whole from agents acting in their self interest. That theory is predicated on the market being composed of buyers and sellers of broadly similar financial power. This is no longer the case in most markets, certainly not in the UK as far as ordinary people or most small companies are concerned.
  - schmidtleonard 2y ago
    Yes. Markets pursue the interest of wealth-weighted humans, not evenly-weighted humans. Disguising "wealth weighted value" under the concept of "value" (which, colloquially, has a more even weight) is the propaganda coup of the century.

pch00 2y ago

Led By Donkeys' exposure of the Truss mini-budget and the Adam Smith Institute involvement is enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRDLIOME47c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRDLIOME47c

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

If you consider tanking the UK economy to the tune of hundreds of millions if not billions of pounds, then yes, absolutely.

throwaway48540 2y ago
How could they possibly do that?
- grumpy_coder 2y ago
  They are referring to the liz truss budget.
  - throwaway48540 2y ago
    So it is the elected representatives who are responsible for choosing them and implementing whatever they suggested?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      Being elected doesn't remove your obligations to follow sane, moral policies.
      - throwaway48540 2y ago
        That's my point. Crazy economists are not responsible for the damage, it's the elected people who listened to them and followed through. To create an intentionally extreme parallel, imagine they have chosen a group of idk, satanists. Would you blame the group of satanists for being satanists, or the people in charge of a country who contacted a group of satanists for advice?
        ninalanyon 2y ago
        Surely you blame both? Being consistently evil and living up (or down?) to ones reputation for evil doesn't make one less evil.

rjsw 2y ago

They refuse to say who funds them.

GordonAShumway 2y ago

Hats. The fedoras they wear shades their faces from view, m’lady

nmadden 2y ago

As rjsw says, they refuse to disclose who funds them. See https://www.monbiot.com/2022/10/07/thinktanking-the-country/ https://www.monbiot.com/2022/10/07/thinktanking-the-country/ for some background.