[ch4s3]

> The way I look at this is that the Adam Smith-ian free market makes the implicit assumption that market information (pricing, quality) disseminates via neutral, unbiased channels.

This couldn’t be more incorrect. In Smith’s day your sources of information would be interpersonal, or one of your local newspapers. Newspapers in the 18th century wore their bias on their sleeves and had very particular world views, they were anything but neutral. You might also learn about commercial interests in coffee houses where stock markets first developed. This was a place where people were trying to sell you something, like shares in a commercial shipping business.

I’m always astonished that people make these claims about Smith’s work without having read his books or any relevant history.

[hliyan]

Smith's book sits on my bedside stand as I write this. In the hypothetical society he uses in the book (the one with the butcher and the baker), the flow of market information is indeed interpersonal (though he never explicitly states this, to my recollection) and therefore not only carries some level of trust, but is generally peer-to-peer. The state of 18th century news papers and marketing actually supports my point, which is a point that applies to any society with a high level of economic power asymmetry, not just to the modern era.

[ch4s3]

My point about the news environment is exactly the opposite of what you were saying. Commercial news was everywhere in Smith’s day and very much not neutral or lacking bias.

[lo_zamoyski]

This is a general phenomenon. People form associations through casual encounters with something or other without actually trying to understand what is actually the case.

[ch4s3]

I think it’s the certainty that’s bothers me. It also concerns me that people underpin a larger anticapitalist worldview based on ahistorical and incorrect understandings of capitalism.