An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Absolutely farcical! But then how many FT readers will notice the incompetence? How many FT readers buy Gavin Kennedy's books on Smith? Gillian Tett, who strangely enough is one of the better people at the FT, will no doubt be praised for her condensed take on the great man.
"The motivated actions of merchants could instead have public disbenefits, such as in motivated actions to have tariffs imposed - even outright prohibitions - which are, explained Smith many time throughout Wealth of Nations, public disbenefits."
What's wrong with tariffs? How else could govt obtain "money!"?
Then this is rich, he offers:
"all senior journalists at least know from their knowledge of the English language, what a metaphor is and what it contributes to literacy"
Without evidence again ("neo-liberal conspiracy!" coming in here????)
but then Kennedy comments here:
Comment:
The ‘invisible hand’ as far Adam Smith was concerned was a metaphor, not a proper noun. Metaphors do not exist like, say nouns - they are representatve of their ‘objects’, i.e to what they refer. See Adam Smith on metaphors in his Lectures on Rhetoric 1763/1978 When for example, Adam Smith, wrote of paper money as being, metaphorically, the “Daedalian Wings of Paper Money” he referred to the insecurity of paper money compared to the solidity of gold. The Daedallian wings were fixed to the body of Icarus, who tried to fly, but the sun melted the glue holding the wings to his body and he fell to his death. Hence, solid gold is more secure than paper money. There were no Daedalian wings - it was a well known mythical fable, but an excellent example of the rhetorical use of a metaphor."
Where Kennedy brings in the figure of speech "Deadalian Wings" in an attempt to clarify... BUT then applies this figure of speech to ANOTHER figure of speech "money!" and doesnt even realize it!
So he doesnt understand figures of speech either yet he proposes to school others on their mis-use.....
4 comments:
Smackdown or what?
The level off unprofessionalism is astounding. One would not survive reputationally in other disciplines.
Absolutely farcical! But then how many FT readers will notice the incompetence? How many FT readers buy Gavin Kennedy's books on Smith? Gillian Tett, who strangely enough is one of the better people at the FT, will no doubt be praised for her condensed take on the great man.
"The motivated actions of merchants could instead have public disbenefits, such as in motivated actions to have tariffs imposed - even outright prohibitions - which are, explained Smith many time throughout Wealth of Nations, public disbenefits."
What's wrong with tariffs? How else could govt obtain "money!"?
Then this is rich, he offers:
"all senior journalists at least know from their knowledge of the English language, what a metaphor is and what it contributes to literacy"
Without evidence again ("neo-liberal conspiracy!" coming in here????)
but then Kennedy comments here:
Comment:
The ‘invisible hand’ as far Adam Smith was concerned was a metaphor, not a proper noun. Metaphors do not exist like, say nouns - they are representatve of their ‘objects’, i.e to what they refer. See Adam Smith on metaphors in his Lectures on Rhetoric 1763/1978
When for example, Adam Smith, wrote of paper money as being, metaphorically, the “Daedalian Wings of Paper Money” he referred to the insecurity of paper money compared to the solidity of gold. The Daedallian wings were fixed to the body of Icarus, who tried to fly, but the sun melted the glue holding the wings to his body and he fell to his death. Hence, solid gold is more secure than paper money. There were no Daedalian wings - it was a well known mythical fable, but an excellent example of the rhetorical use of a metaphor."
Where Kennedy brings in the figure of speech "Deadalian Wings" in an attempt to clarify... BUT then applies this figure of speech to ANOTHER figure of speech "money!" and doesnt even realize it!
So he doesnt understand figures of speech either yet he proposes to school others on their mis-use.....
Typical economist....
Post a Comment