Marx believed workers were commodities under capitalism; I'm not sure if Smith believed the same, but it seems both men believed labor, and not trade or land, determines price behavior in competitive markets.Smith was okay with the rich paying more than their share, since they got more out of society, wanted no taxes on necessities but was fine with taxes on luxuries, and wanted corporations to continue to be banned. That Marxist enough for you?
Smith was okay with the rich paying more than their share, since they got more out of society, wanted no taxes on necessities but was fine with taxes on luxuries, and wanted corporations to continue to be banned. That Marxist enough for you?
You can think of him as anything you like, he was a Moralist actually, but that's what the man said, so he was a Marxist right?Smith was okay with the rich paying more than their share, since they got more out of society, wanted no taxes on necessities but was fine with taxes on luxuries, and wanted corporations to continue to be banned. That Marxist enough for you?
dear, almost all historians think of him as the founder of capitalism. What makes you so stupid? Marxist wanted public ownership of all industries and small businesses.
Isn't thinking fun?
he was a Marxist right?
.
An economist would say that Smith is Smith, and Marx is Marx, but Smith would have been fine with some of Marx and Marx was fine with plenty of Smith. The point is, no one here but me knows that because they don't know either man, in the slightest.he was a Marxist right?
.
name one economist who agrees or admit to lacking the IQ to be here as a typical liberal.
An economist would say that Smith is Smith,
labor is the superior of capital??
To your side he would have been a Marxist, the entire reason for this thread. What do you call someone who's fine with the rich paying more and opposed to corporations?An economist would say that Smith is Smith,
dear economists would say smith was very very capitalist, and only a liberal dummy would say he was marxist.
What type of gun do you use?labor is the superior of capital??
if so why does labor need to steal capital at the point of a gun?
It doesn't, but it likes a fair share of the wealth it creates. And those who allow wealth to be created in the first place also get a share. Nice eh, spread the wealth and make even more wealth.labor is the superior of capital??
if so why does labor need to steal capital at the point of a gun?
so then dummy name someone on the right who calls Adam Smith a Marxist? Feel slow yet??To your side he would have been a Marxist,
Smith was okay with the rich paying more than their share, since they got more out of society, wanted no taxes on necessities but was fine with taxes on luxuries, and wanted corporations to continue to be banned. That Marxist enough for you?
They don't because they don't know Smith or Marx, but some of what they hate in Marx they would find in Smith, so, now what?so then dummy name someone on the right who calls Adam Smith a Marxist? Feel slow yet??To your side he would have been a Marxist,
opposed to corporations?
So, what do you call the person above, the one who is okay with the rich paying more and outlawing corporations? You'd call him??Smith was okay with the rich paying more than their share, since they got more out of society, wanted no taxes on necessities but was fine with taxes on luxuries, and wanted corporations to continue to be banned. That Marxist enough for you?
Dopey you. Words have meaning. Your words about Smith don't even come close to matching a valid meaning of Marxist.
They don't because they don't know Smith or Marx, but some of what they hate in Marx they would find in Smith, so, now what?so then dummy name someone on the right who calls Adam Smith a Marxist? Feel slow yet??To your side he would have been a Marxist,
They don't because they don't know Smith or Marx,
Corporations were people, managers in this case, making decisions with Other Peoples' Money, and that's why Smith opposed them. Want to know why? Because if it was your kids that didn't eat you'd make wiser decisions than if you still got paid but others starved. He was a moralist remember. Sounds just like one.opposed to corporations?
too stupid by 1000%. In the 18th Century corporations were govt monopolies. See why we are positive that a liberal will be slow? What other conclusion is possible. Do you want to be a liberal all your life?
