Debates
04 Mar 23
04 Mar 23
Adam Smith said this: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, or the baker, or the brewer that we expect to eat our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".
Adam Smith (the father of capitalism, some say) wrote the Wealth of Nations and was real clear to not explain the distribution of wealth and power in terms of God's will, but rather appeals to natural social, political and technological factors.
Is he so wrong? Where is he wrong?
04 Mar 23
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidYou should be careful before you start quoting Adam Smith. He was in favor of the "death tax".
Adam Smith said this: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, or the baker, or the brewer that we expect to eat our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".
Adam Smith (the father of capitalism, some say) wrote the Wealth of Nations and was real clear to not explain the distribution of wealth and power in terms of God's will, but rather appeals to natural social, political and technological factors.
Is he so wrong? Where is he wrong?
Adam Smith: Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms (1763)
A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/smith-lectures-on-justice-police-revenue-and-arms-1763
04 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidIf money increases your chances of survival, then he may be right.
Adam Smith said this: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, or the baker, or the brewer that we expect to eat our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".
Adam Smith (the father of capitalism, some say) wrote the Wealth of Nations and was real clear to not explain the distribution of wealth and power in terms of God's will, but rather appeals to natural social, political and technological factors.
Is he so wrong? Where is he wrong?
If a well fed population, or being the best at something, etc. increases your chance of survival, then he’d be wrong.
Generally speaking, historically, a well fed, healthy and happy population decreases one’s chances of getting hanged in a public square (or stabbed, shot, beheaded).
So there’s quite some motivation from external factors as well.
And as Madame Defarge once knitted: “Qui, that’s gonna hurt.”
@averagejoe1 saidHe wasn’t wrong but he didn’t have anything to say that you’d be very happy with. He pioneered the idea of globalism and opposed the dominant form of capitalism of the day which was mercantilism / Crony capitalism whereby national governments competed by employing import tariffs and being better at exploiting the resources of non developed countries than their competitor nations.
Adam Smith said this: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, or the baker, or the brewer that we expect to eat our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".
Adam Smith (the father of capitalism, some say) wrote the Wealth of Nations and was real clear to not explain the distribution of wealth and power in terms of God's will, but rather appeals to natural social, political and technological factors.
Is he so wrong? Where is he wrong?
Under the ultimate philosophy of Smith the 1st world today would have zero manufacturing base because that famous economic anarchist the invisible hand would shift them all to low wage economies. Trumpism with its MAGA approach to international trade would be an anathema to Smith.
Like all the genius minds of the enlightenment or any period he was restricted to finding contemporary solutions to the problems of his day, unfortunately the global economy of today is a tad more complicated than the one Smith was commenting on.
What do you think he has to say about the U.S. political economy today Joe?
04 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidadam smith would have crapped his pants at the notion that bakers and brewers and butchers would spend millions to own politicians who would then vote however they pleased. That the butchers and bakers would hide their money in offshore accounts and being allowed to skip paying taxes
Adam Smith said this: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, or the baker, or the brewer that we expect to eat our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".
Adam Smith (the father of capitalism, some say) wrote the Wealth of Nations and was real clear to not explain the distribution of wealth and power in terms of God's will, but rather appeals to natural social, political and technological factors.
Is he so wrong? Where is he wrong?
You constantly frame your arguments in this dumbass way : the butcher and the baker are just poor small businesses and the evil socialists are trying to steal their money when in fact it's never about small businesses. It's about the giant multi-million corporations
Then again it does get harder to justify the position that the wealthy are the victims the more millions(not to mention billions) they gave.
04 Mar 23
@athousandyoung saidHa. So I should not quote you on anything, since you are in favor of abortion?
You should be careful before you start quoting Adam Smith. He was in favor of the "death tax".
Adam Smith: Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms (1763)
A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such ...[text shortened]...
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/smith-lectures-on-justice-police-revenue-and-arms-1763
You guys are too easy.
04 Mar 23
@shavixmir saidI cannot IMAGINE using the phrase 'well fed' when speaking of citizens of your country. Well fed? Like the livestock on a plantation, and the people who work there. Creepy. No one feeds me, I feed myself.
If money increases your chances of survival, then he may be right.
If a well fed population, or being the best at something, etc. increases your chance of survival, then he’d be wrong.
Generally speaking, historically, a well fed, healthy and happy population decreases one’s chances of getting hanged in a public square (or stabbed, shot, beheaded).
So there’s quite ...[text shortened]... tion from external factors as well.
And as Madame Defarge once knitted: “Qui, that’s gonna hurt.”
04 Mar 23
@kevcvs57 saidAre you kidding? Back up a few administrations, before it has gotten out of hand, which it has, and see what his ideas wrought, resulting in the world's greatest, richest, and most prosperous country, done using his ideas of capitalism .
He wasn’t wrong but he didn’t have anything to say that you’d be very happy with. He pioneered the idea of globalism and opposed the dominant form of capitalism of the day which was mercantilism / Crony capitalism whereby national governments competed by employing import tariffs and being better at exploiting the resources of non developed countries than their competitor nat ...[text shortened]... th was commenting on.
What do you think he has to say about the U.S. political economy today Joe?
He would be proud, he would have been right. I think I will go out and 'do' a little of his capitalism before the time comes when you fellers take it all over, and....how did Obama put it.....transform America?
04 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidYou haven’t read the book have you Joe 😞
Are you kidding? Back up a few administrations, before it has gotten out of hand, which it has, and see what his ideas wrought, resulting in the world's greatest, richest, and most prosperous country, done using his ideas of capitalism .
He would be proud, he would have been right. I think I will go out and 'do' a little of his capitalism before the time comes when you fellers take it all over, and....how did Obama put it.....transform America?
The premise is that all nations would be richer if they tore down their trade barriers and tariffs and allowed completely free trade amongst themselves.
Does that sound like trumps policy to you?
And your first paragraph is a complete lie and I’m amazed at your stupidity in thinking it would fly.
04 Mar 23
@zahlanzi saidSo;, you are saying the Butchers et al should still be operating in their aprons with a few assistants and apprentices helping in their 3 room shop on Bleaker Street?
adam smith would have crapped his pants at the notion that bakers and brewers and butchers would spend millions to own politicians who would then vote however they pleased. That the butchers and bakers would hide their money in offshore accounts and being allowed to skip paying taxes
You constantly frame your arguments in this dumbass way : the butcher and the baker are j ...[text shortened]... the position that the wealthy are the victims the more millions(not to mention billions) they gave.
No growth? But it did grow, to a company, then a branch in another town, then incorporated, then sold shares to the citizens so they could begin investing for their retirement.
How could it not grow? Should today's landscape downtown be a few shops catering to the locals.? No huge cut-rate Walmarts** to serve the less fortunate? Do libs not understand prosperity? Becoming wealthy?
**. Sometimes it takes a bit of the aforementioned 'cronyism' to put a deal together. How else can all the complicated successes be accomplished? By not talking to each other, making deals? Geez o Petey. Is it so hard to accept that a few of the smart guys get rich along the way. Are you going to waive some posters in their front yards?......Posters you bought at Walmart?
04 Mar 23
@kevcvs57 saidYou apparently have a problem defining 'free trade'. Well, let me quote him with this, and then tell where I am lying.
You haven’t read the book have you Joe 😞
The premise is that all nations would be richer if they tore down their trade barriers and tariffs and allowed completely free trade amongst themselves.
Does that sound like trumps policy to you?
And your first paragraph is a complete lie and I’m amazed at your stupidity in thinking it would fly.
The core of Smith's thesis was that humans' natural tendency for self-interest (or in modern terms, looking out for yourself) results in prosperity.
This is a killer statement for libs because it suggests greed, and all of the other horrible avarice despised by liberals.
You will have ro tell us all what the lie is in first paragraph. I am interested to know, myself.
@averagejoe1 saidYou asked where he went wrong and there it is well done Joe
You apparently have a problem defining 'free trade'. Well, let me quote him with this, and then tell where I am lying.
The core of Smith's thesis was that humans' natural tendency for self-interest (or in modern terms, looking out for yourself) results in prosperity.
This is a killer statement for libs because it suggests greed, and all of the other horrible avari ...[text shortened]...
You will have ro tell us all what the lie is in first paragraph. I am interested to know, myself.
Now explain how trump was following the wealth of nations playbook when he put trade barriers and tariffs up Joe
It’s no good posting clips from Pinterest Joe you have to read the book to understand that the ultimate logic of the invisible hand results in a few massive corporations dominating the market and the demise of the middle class, the general populace gets poorer without government oversight and regulation of the free market.
You still haven’t explained how you are going to stop all US manufacturing from going abroad where cheaper labour can be found whilst adhering to laisset faire economics Joe, please try to be as concise as you can mate it’s a Saturday over here and the sun is shining unexpectedly
04 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 said"No growth?"
So;, you are saying the Butchers et al should still be operating in their aprons with a few assistants and apprentices helping in their 3 room shop on Bleaker Street?
No growth? But it did grow, to a company, then a branch in another town, then incorporated, then sold shares to the citizens so they could begin investing for their retirement.
How could it not gro ...[text shortened]... way. Are you going to waive some posters in their front yards?......Posters you bought at Walmart?
They can grow. And the leftists all want to help them grow. As long as they pay their taxes, treat their workers fairly, don't take over the entire market in their field and don't fuk up the environment.
There is room for millionaires in a socialist society. The real kind, not the one that you get scared of like a child watching horror movies.
"No huge cut-rate Walmarts** to serve the less fortunate?"
None. Because we don't need a Walmart to undercut every small business in a world where there are no "less fortunate" that have no choice but to work and/or shop at Walmart.
"Do libs not understand prosperity? Becoming wealthy?"
Prosperity is having everyone live a happy life. Your idea of prosperity was around way before capitalism, in the form of kings and nobles being prosperous while other people where unable to be so. Being prosperous at the cost of the rest of the people's prosperity.
"Is it so hard to accept that a few of the smart guys get rich along the way."
Yes. Just like it's hard to accept someone stealing your car or mugging you. Those thieves were "smart" too, taking what isn't theirs instead of working to get their own crap.
Your billionaires are simply thieves in principle but they took it one step further, they made their thievery legal. Or prevented any effort to make it illegal.
This is also true in the countries we, the leftists, put forth as examples to aspire to, though to a way lesser degree. Also, it's much easier to not care that some people have way more than they deserve when you have mostly what you need.
A dane will not care that there are other danes who are millionaires, because he has a good pension waiting for him, he has a good minimum wage that he can fall back too, his healthcare is taken care of, the country he is living in is safe. He has enough.
An american might care that there are billionaires while they are going bankrupt because of a medical bill.
It's a matter of nuance. You can't see it because you're dumb. For dumb people everything must be reduced to black and white because they can't grasp the notion of a spectrum. It's too complicated.
I think i lost you again. Here is a simplification: Grocer shop around the corner good. Walmart bad.
04 Mar 23
@kevcvs57 saidYour restricting trade abroad references are unrealistic. We are not isolationists. And Smith spoke in his own era, not that of today. He didn’t envision how small the world get in terms of trade. So we can all agree that he was right, can we not. Do you want to disagree about his championing self-interest?
You asked where he went wrong and there it is well done Joe
Now explain how trump was following the wealth of nations playbook when he put trade barriers and tariffs up Joe
It’s no good posting clips from Pinterest Joe you have to read the book to understand that the ultimate logic of the invisible hand results in a few massive corporations dominating the market and the ...[text shortened]... e try to be as concise as you can mate it’s a Saturday over here and the sun is shining unexpectedly
And, here you go with Trump again, a lot of economists backed him on his tariff ideas, You must admit he had China on its heels. You saying Trump did not level that playing field? He is a businessman, which Biden is not.
To mention corporations dominating the market…… I guess Walmart may be the biggest dominator of all, but have they not brought good to the USA.”” And cronyism deals were struct for small towns to get Walmart to come in there. I just wish, as you make negative statements about corporations and tariffs, that you would say what is another way to accomplish what a country like ours has accomplished. If you make such a statement with a basis of Socialism, it will go right over my head. You know, making us all ‘well fed’, as Shav puts it.
04 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidI just explained how the self interest aspect of his economic theory carries the seeds of its own destruction Joe
Your restricting trade abroad references are unrealistic. We are not isolationists. And Smith spoke in his own era, not that of today. He didn’t envision how small the world get in terms of trade. So we can all agree that he was right, can we not. Do you want to disagree about his championing self-interest?
And, here you go with Trump again, a lot of economists back ...[text shortened]... is of Socialism, it will go right over my head. You know, making us all ‘well fed’, as Shav puts it.
You have just confirmed my earlier critique that whilst his philosophy made sense in an era of mercantile / crony capitalism todays global economy is a tad more complex but many nations still use trade and economic expansion as an arm of, or, in conjunction with military and political expansion. China and the US to name but two.
On the other hand the UK has become a lot poorer after pulling out of one the worlds biggest free trade areas, namely the EU. Adam Smith was a very clever man and a lot of his treaties has been proven to be self evidently true and beneficial but the problem arises when you take a purist approach to any given philosophy, especially political economy Marxism would be another example where only the soft socialist practises can be implemented without doing more harm than good.
If only those two had been able to sit down for a pint and a chat.