Much of the moral fervor behind the drive for equality of outcome comes from the widespread belief that it is not fair that some children should have a great advantage over others simply because they happen to have wealthy parents. Of course it is not fair. However, unfairness can take many forms. It can take the form of the inheritance of property—bonds and stocks, houses, factories; it can also take the form of the inheritance of talent—musical ability, strength, mathematical genius. The inheritance of property can be interfered with more readily than the inheritance of talent. But from an ethical point of view, is there any difference between the two? Yet many people resent the inheritance of property but not the inheritance of talent. (查看原文)
Look at the same issue from the point of view of the parent. If you want to assure your child a higher income in life, you can do so in various ways. You can buy him (or her) an education that will equip him to pursue an occupation yielding a high income; or you can set him up in a business that will yield a higher income than he could earn as a salaried employee; or you can leave him property, the income from which will enable him to live better. Is there any ethical difference among these three ways of using your property? Or again, if the state leaves you any money to spend over and above taxes, should the state permit you to spend it on riotous living but not to leave it to your children? (查看原文)
Introduction Adam Smith's key insight was that both parties to an exchange can benefit and that, so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to tra...
2011-04-20 10:12
Introduction
Adam Smith's key insight was that both parties to an exchange can benefit and that, so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit.
By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.“
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom....The combination of economic and political power in the same hands is a sure recipe for tyranny.
To Smith and Jefferson, government's role was as an umpire, not a participant. Jefferson's ideal, as he expressed it in his first inaugural address (1801) , was "[a] wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement."
The experience of recent years—slowing growth and declining productivity—raises a doubt whether private ingenuity can continue to overcome the deadening effects of government control if we continue to grant ever more power to government, to authorize a "new class" of civil servants to spend ever larger fractions of our income supposedly on our behalf. Sooner or later—and perhaps sooner than many of us expect—an ever bigger government would destroy both the prosperity that we owe to the free market and the human freedom proclaimed so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence.
申夏
机械工业出版社2008版
[已注销]
机械工业出版社2008版
胡天翼
机械工业出版社2008版
Jia =)
机械工业出版社2008版
“人类自由和经济自由这两种思想的携手并进，在美国结出了最丰硕的果实。在我们的头脑里，这些思想仍占据着很重要的位置，我们大家都浸透了这些思想。它们是我们生存的真实依靠。可是一个时期以来。我们偏离了它们。我们忘记了一条基本的真理，即对人类自由的最大威胁是权力的集中，无论是集中在政府手里，还是集中在任何其他人手里。我们使自己相信，只要权力的授予是出于高尚的目的，就不会带来损害。”
亚当·斯密在《国富论》中阐述的主要思想，简单的常常使人发生误解：如果双方的交换是自愿的，那就只有在他们都相信可以从中得益时，才会做成交易。经济上的谬论，大都是由于人们忽视了这个简单的道理，而往往认为，就那么一块饼，一方要多得就必得牺牲另一方。 …… 私利不是目光短浅的自私自利。只要是参与者所关心的、所珍视的、所追求的，就都是私利。科学家设法开拓新的研究领域，传教士设法吧非教徒变成教徒，慈善家设法...
0 有用 缁衣 2008-08-02
1979年的著作
0 有用 隐德来希 2011-03-12
第五章
1 有用 magnus 2015-10-17
阿狗写作模板
4 有用 Mravinsky 2017-12-22
是一本能把专业的知识，让大众都读得懂的好书。讲述了经济的好与坏与意识形态没有什么关系。剖析清楚了市场的力量与货币——价格的作用。对我来说，最得益的一部分是危机的剖析，与我脑海中的危机成因与罗斯福新政的作用有很多不同的地方；再就是天生平等的不同解读；通货膨胀的成因、影响与意义对我则很有启发。至于详细叙述学校、工会、医院等通过干预则弊大于利则是我以前就想到过的。有些人说这本书的许多理论是错误的，这很可... 是一本能把专业的知识，让大众都读得懂的好书。讲述了经济的好与坏与意识形态没有什么关系。剖析清楚了市场的力量与货币——价格的作用。对我来说，最得益的一部分是危机的剖析，与我脑海中的危机成因与罗斯福新政的作用有很多不同的地方；再就是天生平等的不同解读；通货膨胀的成因、影响与意义对我则很有启发。至于详细叙述学校、工会、医院等通过干预则弊大于利则是我以前就想到过的。有些人说这本书的许多理论是错误的，这很可能毕竟是将近40年前的东西，再高明的思想也很难洞察几十年后的事情，但是我毕竟经济学的书没怎么读过，究竟那些理论谬误则很难辨识，但是货币理论我认为还是很有见地的。另外，在读书期间我将这本书推荐给了许多人，我很少推荐书，因为人各有志趣，但是我觉得这本书对任何人都是有启发与帮助的。 (展开)
0 有用 [已注销] 2014-04-26
可作入门用。“（理论上）只有一种医治通货膨胀的方法：即放慢货币增长率。”
0 有用 经济人读书会 2021-09-10
该书主要研究三个方面问题：一是资本主义运行原则；二是政府干预的起源和后果；三是改变大政府的政策主张。在该书中，作者分析了国家干预的弊端，阐述了经济自由、经济增长和社会稳定之间的关系，并且提出了政策建议。推荐人：王宇
0 有用 hibernate 2021-07-25
「PL」即使你是和我一样，相信部分政府干预的好处，也会对作者关于大政府弊端的理性与层层递进的说理方式表示尊重与折服。关于自由这个观念，在哲学政治学都读过，在经济学的角度，这是在「国富论」之后所读过最好的解析。很感激会有这样的学者存在，借给我们了解世界与社会的工具。
0 有用 欲望道人 2021-05-27
去图书馆借了唯一的一本，真长见识：一本封面翻掉页了多次又多次粘补上，里面有n多不同笔迹涂划的老书
0 有用 你不知我多可爱 2020-12-23
沉默也是另一种屈服，但我除了沉默还能做什么。
0 有用 $un🌻Flower 2020-08-13
@2007-09-30 11:07:24