Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I must have been slow, for it took me 3 days to be sure that this was Prolitarian.A lot of people have been in agreement with you, more or less, until the point it became clear that you're a communist.
Can we be done with it and put those hammer & sickle thingies astride to your handle again, just for the clarity of it?
Yeah, that pesky Industrial Revolution sure was nothing. Till about 1904, our entire economy was Laissez Faire Capitalism. It's why we have many protections we have now for labor safety, consumer safety, fair business practices and investor protection. All good improvements because when left with no control or oversight, captains of industry do the same thing the socialists do when they're not severely curtailed: try to turn themselves into kings.When in history has laissze faire ever prooven to work ?
It never has.
The results the proponents scream will be seen from unfettering the market have never been proven to exsist.
There is NO evidence they will work as the champions of this idea say.
Untested.
Unproven.
Myth.
You can scream as loud as you want about how wonderful it is.
You might as well be screaming about blue flying monkeys.
laissez-faire economics
An approach to economics that asserts the importance of the free, competitive market of individual suppliers and individual purchasers to the efficient production, distribution, and allocation of goods and services as well as to the maximization of individual choice, and emphasizes the need to keep state regulation to a minimum. Current laissez-faire economic theorizing has its origins in the work of the classical economists, such as David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, and Adam Smith at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century. In The Wealth of Nations (1776) Smith, for example, argued that though individuals in the market would pursue their own self-interest, the market's ‘invisible hand’ would lead to the realization of the common good.
. . . .According to (Adam) Smith the institutions most appropriate to a period of commercial interdependence would provide for the governing authority to pursue a laissez faire (let alone) policy in relation to the economy. Smith justified this by arguing that people, through applying their talents and assets where they contributed to the production of the things potential buyers wanted, sought to earn monies. Under laissez faire systems individuals, acting in their own self-interest as economic agents, would tend to dedicate themselves to those economic activities that brought them the greatest reward in terms of income be it in the form wages, rent, or profit. Smith showed that by giving themselves to such highly rewarding economic activities in their own self interest people would also be maximising the economic well-being of society.
Smith saw people as economic agents being as it were guided by an "invisible hand" (a term first used in his Theory of Moral Sentiments). High prices (in terms of a "natural" price related to the costs of production) of any good or service would automatically induce people to engage in its production. Increased production would lead to a greater supply and lower prices. People as buyers would get more of what they wanted more cheaply. People as producers would tend to be earning enhanced wages as a result of producing the formerly high priced good or service. A reversal of the argument would see "low" priced items falling away in terms of their production.
Smith saw in the division of labor and the extension of markets almost limitless possibilities for society to expand its wealth through manufacture and trade. Wealth consists of the goods which all the people of society consume; note all - this is a democratic, and hence radical, philosophy of wealth. Gone is the notion of gold, treasures, kingly hoards; gone the prerogatives of merchants or farmers or working guilds. We are in the modern world where the flow of goods and services consumed by everyone constitutes the ultimate aim and end of economic life. . . .
Adam Smith Wealth Nations
Sorry. I seemed to have missed your point. Where would we be without the Industrial Revolution? You said Laissez Faire did nothing. It sure as shit did a lot. Created the industrial era since the invention of the Steam Engine. Before that you had more Mercantilism which isn't the same thing.You just proved my point asshole
there weren't any of TM's blue monkeys before 1904, either, fitz. while there was considerably less regulation, railroad tycoons, and by extension steel and coal bosses, were heavily subsidized by a government intending to sow the seeds that laissez-faire advocates feel will sow themselves. you'll find a merge from merchantilism to corporate/consumer capitalism in american economic history, with no such laissez-faire ever getting through the thick veil of tarriffs our founders and our 19th century leaders favored.Yeah, that pesky Industrial Revolution sure was nothing. Till about 1904, our entire economy was Laissez Faire Capitalism. It's why we have many protections we have now for labor safety, consumer safety, fair business practices and investor protection. All good improvements because when left with no control or oversight, captains of industry do the same thing the socialists do when they're not severely curtailed: try to turn themselves into kings.You might as well be screaming about blue flying monkeys.
Sorry. I seemed to have missed your point. Where would we be without the Industrial Revolution? You said Laissez Faire did nothing. It sure as shit did a lot. Created the industrial era since the invention of the Steam Engine. Before that you had more Mercantilism which isn't the same thing.You just proved my point asshole
So, if that was your point, you proved nothing. If your point was something else, you need to make it in a clearer statement. Personally I don't think you have a clue as to what you hate and are just reacting like Pavlov's tards to the word "Laissez Faire" because you lib teachers and professors have labeled that as "evil", which you never questioned once.
I'm thinking that some of you people don't understand the principle of laizzez-faire economics or even what it is. It is not the economic anarchy that you seem to think, and I have provided you with a direct and famous Adam Smith quotation clearly illustrating that he understood laizzez-faire economics quite well and was an advocate of same. It would seem that most of you have obtained your information from pro-big government sources rather than from more objective sources.
As obviously none of you bothered to read the essay excerpt I posted, let's try again using different sources:
Yeah, that pesky Industrial Revolution sure was nothing. Till about 1904, our entire economy was Laissez Faire Capitalism. It's why we have many protections we have now for labor safety, consumer safety, fair business practices and investor protection.
All good improvements because when left with no control or oversight, captains of industry do the same thing the socialists do when they're not severely curtailed: try to turn themselves into kings.
Sorry. I seemed to have missed your point. Where would we be without the Industrial Revolution? You said Laissez Faire did nothing. It sure as shit did a lot. Created the industrial era since the invention of the Steam Engine. Before that you had more Mercantilism which isn't the same thing.You just proved my point asshole
So, if that was your point, you proved nothing. If your point was something else, you need to make it in a clearer statement. Personally I don't think you have a clue as to what you hate and are just reacting like Pavlov's tards to the word "Laissez Faire" because you lib teachers and professors have labeled that as "evil", which you never questioned once.
Read what is said next time.
I said it has never in history produced the results claimed by its proponents.
The industrial revolution resulted in massive evil directed against the populace.
It also lead to monopolies and a backlash by the people in the form of laws and regulations curtailing the markets freedoms.
IT FAILED YOU FOOL!
It did not produce the utopia you all claim it would produce.
Volume does not equate truth.
I'm thinking that some of you people don't understand the principle of laizzez-faire economics or even what it is. It is not the economic anarchy that you seem to think, and I have provided you with a direct and famous Adam Smith quotation clearly illustrating that he understood laizzez-faire economics quite well and was an advocate of same. It would seem that most of you have obtained your information from pro-big government sources rather than from more objective sources.
As obviously none of you bothered to read the essay excerpt I posted, let's try again using different sources:
i've read ..of the wealth of nations cover to cover, fox. that's objective. i'm not taking any editorial commentary on the subject into account as you are. such commentary cannot afford you the distict advantage of seeing, severally, that what adam smith advocates is a manipulation of the factors of supply and demand in an economy, not the running of its course. while lots of folks run out and get copies of the divinci code or whatever, i read shit like adam smith. it is blaringly obvious from reading this tiresome 18th century stuff, that while smith is a classical capitalist, economic liberalism like pierre le pesant et al present arguments which smith refuted in his work... rent controls, progressive tax, regulatory bodies for agriculture produce, consumer standards regs, infrastructure development, civil service, tolls and luxury taxes, anti-trust laws...all by way of government intervention in the economy... all adam smith's advice in w.o.n.
200-odd years later, it is clear what differences capitalists and merchantilists maintain, however, with his shit still in publication, there's no need to blur the nuance between adam smith's classical economics and austrian school economics.
my point, fox, as an adherent of much of what adam smith lays out, is that some modern laissez-faire economics does not take into account what smith said centuries back.
these principals still have their application today, and i argue that the US is a leading example of such, despite consistent criticism of our economics by yourself, among many libertarian or conservative 'thinkers'.
edit: to be fair, this characterizes many progressive, socialist and commie 'thinkers', too
Sorry. I seemed to have missed your point. Where would we be without the Industrial Revolution? You said Laissez Faire did nothing. It sure as shit did a lot. Created the industrial era since the invention of the Steam Engine. Before that you had more Mercantilism which isn't the same thing.
So, if that was your point, you proved nothing. If your point was something else, you need to make it in a clearer statement. Personally I don't think you have a clue as to what you hate and are just reacting like Pavlov's tards to the word "Laissez Faire" because you lib teachers and professors have labeled that as "evil", which you never questioned once.
Read what is said next time.
I said it has never in history produced the results claimed by its proponents.
The industrial revolution resulted in massive evil directed against the populace.
It also lead to monopolies and a backlash by the people in the form of laws and regulations curtailing the markets freedoms.
IT FAILED YOU FOOL!
It did not produce the utopia you all claim it would produce.
Also, you're imagining shit. I never once claim that it would produce a Utopia. I'm not interested in Utopias. I'm interested in everyone being able to make the best life for themselves as possible. And some lazy fuckers... well just won't make it, others will get screwed and a few will exceed their wildest dreams. But you know what? Liberty does not guarantee results. They may vary on accordance to your individual circumstances and effort. And there's nothing wrong with that.
my point, fox, as an adherent of much of what adam smith lays out, is that some modern laissez-faire economics does not take into account what smith said centuries back.
these principals still have their application today, and i argue that the US is a leading example of such, despite consistent criticism of our economics by yourself, among many libertarian or conservative 'thinkers'.
edit: to be fair, this characterizes many progressive, socialist and commie 'thinkers', too
It is my observation that in those areas where government is actually doing its job; i.e. protecting our rights, laizzez-faire principles works very well despite any rules or regulations necessary to protect those rights. However, when government imposes rules or regulations or policy due to 'social conscience' or some such as that unrelated to protecting and defending our Constitutional rights, some of the problems many of you see with laizzez-faire economics quickly emerge because the laizzez-faire principle will be diminished or cease to exist.
Adam Smith was human and therefore not fallible. But the core principle he set forth I believe is valid and worth serious study and contemplation today as an alternative to a government that more and more involves itself in the system.
my point, fox, as an adherent of much of what adam smith lays out, is that some modern laissez-faire economics does not take into account what smith said centuries back.
these principals still have their application today, and i argue that the US is a leading example of such, despite consistent criticism of our economics by yourself, among many libertarian or conservative 'thinkers'.
edit: to be fair, this characterizes many progressive, socialist and commie 'thinkers', too
It is my observation that in those areas where government is actually doing its job; i.e. protecting our rights, laizzez-faire principles works very well despite any rules or regulations necessary to protect those rights. However, when government imposes rules or regulations or policy due to 'social conscience' or some such as that unrelated to protecting and defending our Constitutional rights, some of the problems many of you see with laizzez-faire economics quickly emerge because the laizzez-faire principle will be diminished or cease to exist.
Adam Smith was human and therefore not fallible. But the core principle he set forth I believe is valid and worth serious study and contemplation today as an alternative to a government that more and more involves itself in the system.
here we find ourselves in agreement, fox. i have noticed over the years that a look below the idealist coatings which economic policies are slathered with before they are laid out by politicians betrays the core economic values which they promote. for that reason, i rarely pay any credence to the oft social-justice ideologies at the top of the flag pole, and rather try to appraise the economic aim of the flag bearer, so to speak
from this angle, americas tax and spend, pro-corporate, pro-consumer slant is a well-oiled public/private machine. i would caution that the steam from its stacks, whether leftist or right with respect to social ideology, is just hot air. the changes in the economic machinery, however, are deliberate and decisive moves to manipulate the economy to effects adam smith, milton freedman, maynard keynes, etc. have predicted.
)
When in history has laissze faire ever prooven to work ?
It never has.
The results the proponents scream will be seen from unfettering the market have never been proven to exsist.
There is NO evidence they will work as the champions of this idea say.
Untested.
Unproven.
Myth.
You can scream as loud as you want about how wonderful it is.
You might as well be screaming about blue flying monkeys.
cheers, fox. i reserve the right to quote you on some of that when next time we lock horns
i take your gist on the politics of the day. did you grab mine on the hot air?
Probably neither of us did here. Thanks for making me think though. It has been a good mental workout and made me dig in my memory for stuff I hadn't thought about for awhile.
