Adam Smith was a Marxist

[PaintMyHouse]

To your side he would have been a Marxist,

so then dummy name someone on the right who calls Adam Smith a Marxist? Feel slow yet??

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?

You are a poor troll. What you lack in intellect and even a rudimentary grasp on logic you make up for with an overabundance of dull.

So, you have nothing at all then? Fine by me.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

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??

Damn, kid. Try using standard English.

Those who favor the rich paying more (if we are discussing, primarily, taxation) we might call slightly left leaning. A progressive income tax is not the worst sin in a universe of sins. But who the fuck are you prattling on about now -- the one above who supposedly favors "outlawing corporations." And what is your basis for that claim about whoever it is you think you are referencing?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

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??

Damn, kid. Try using standard English.

Those who favor the rich paying more (if we are discussing, primarily, taxation) we might call slightly left leaning. A progressive income tax is not the worst sin in a universe of sins. But who the fuck are you prattling on about now -- the one above who supposedly favors "outlawing corporations." And what is your basis for that claim about whoever it is you think you are referencing?

Read Smith, and my post above. Here is a starting pointing for why Smith opposed corporations, joint stock ventures, so strongly: South Sea Bubble British history Encyclopedia Britannica

And: South Sea Company - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

Every time I think some Progressive posts the stupidest thing I ever heard in my life, we get one of these OP's

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

To your side he would have been a Marxist,

so then dummy name someone on the right who calls Adam Smith a Marxist? Feel slow yet??

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?

You are a poor troll. What you lack in intellect and even a rudimentary grasp on logic you make up for with an overabundance of dull.

So, you have nothing at all then? Fine by me.

so then dummy name someone on the right who calls Adam Smith a Marxist? Feel slow yet??

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

Every time I think some Progressive posts the stupidest thing I ever heard in my life, we get one of these OP's

And what do you call someone who is fine with the rich paying more than their fair share, a Capitalist?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

As painted brain cells declares (without a coherent or honest basis) some kind of "victory" in his rhetorical flop of a thread, let it be noted that Smith lived in a different age and had a different understanding of the word "corporation" than we have today.

i know this was pointed out to paintedflop, but we can't expect him to be man enough to admit it.

So let's repeat it. STATE-CHARTERED joint stock companies are NOT what we, today, think of when we talk about corporations. Kudos to EdwardB for trying to educate paintedbraincell. Alas, as is often the case, when you cast pearls before swine, their value isn't exactly apparent to the befouled stupid beast.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

To your side he would have been a Marxist,

so then dummy name someone on the right who calls Adam Smith a Marxist? Feel slow yet??

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?

You are a poor troll. What you lack in intellect and even a rudimentary grasp on logic you make up for with an overabundance of dull.

So, you have nothing at all then? Fine by me.

so then dummy name someone on the right who calls Adam Smith a Marxist? Feel slow yet??

You would, if I hadn't mentioned his name.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

why Smith opposed corporations

sorry dear in the 18 thCentury there were no corporations as we know them today. Time to show some character?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations criticized the joint-stock company corporate form because the separation of ownership and management could lead to inefficient management.

The directors of such [joint-stock] companies, however, being the managers rather of other people’s money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own.... Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

why Smith opposed corporations

sorry dear in the 18 thCentury there were no corporations as we know them today. Time to show some character?

Oh but there were. Read the links and find out what the Bubble Act was:

"Bubble Act 1720 (6 Geo I, c 18) was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain that forbade all joint-stock companies not authorised by royal charter. It was passed on 9 June 1720, and was also known as the Royal Exchange and London Assurance Corporation Act 1719, because those companies were incorporated under it."
Bubble Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Surprised? I bet that you are.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations criticized the joint-stock company corporate form because the separation of ownership and management could lead to inefficient management.

too stupid by 10,0000%. Today we have 60 million corporations all competing with each other. Any inefficiency is immediately taken care of by a more efficient corporation.
UBER slow applies to this liberal!

Time to show some character. Do you really want to be a liberal all your life?

 

[Paperman299]

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?

Every time I think some Progressive posts the stupidest thing I ever heard in my life, we get one of these OP's

You throw around the word "Marxist" as freely as anybody on the board, Frank. Far-right conservatives on the board have labeled people and laws "Marxist" on far, far less than what PMH is pointing out about Smith.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Adam Smith could criticize a joint stock company without necessarily being a Marxist, you twit.

More importantly, the plodding OP you are foisting off as an original thought is old stale material. It has already been exposed as the prattling stupidity it is: Adam Smith and the Corporation Organizations and Markets

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

why Smith opposed corporations

sorry dear in the 18 thCentury there were no corporations as we know them today. Time to show some character?

Oh but there were. Read the links and find out what the Bubble Act was:

"Bubble Act 1720 (6 Geo I, c 18) was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain that forbade all joint-stock companies not authorised by royal charter. It was passed on 9 June 1720, and was also known as the Royal Exchange and London Assurance Corporation Act 1719, because those companies were incorporated under it."
Bubble Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Surprised? I bet that you are.

dear, are you saying that in the 1720's they had corporations like the one we have today?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Adam Smith could criticize a joint stock company without necessarily being a Marxist, you twit.

More importantly, the plodding OP you are foisting off as an original thought is old stale material. It has already been exposed as the prattling stupidity it is: Adam Smith and the Corporation Organizations and Markets

I never said it was original, I said you little morons didn't know it.

 

[bripat9643]

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 considered a flat sales tax or property tax to be examples of the rich paying more than their share, so by modern liberal terms he was a right-wing reactionary.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear, are you saying that in the 1720's they had corporations like the ones we have today?

the liberal is afraid to answer!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

why Smith opposed corporations

sorry dear in the 18 thCentury there were no corporations as we know them today. Time to show some character?

Oh but there were. Read the links and find out what the Bubble Act was:

"Bubble Act 1720 (6 Geo I, c 18) was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain that forbade all joint-stock companies not authorised by royal charter. It was passed on 9 June 1720, and was also known as the Royal Exchange and London Assurance Corporation Act 1719, because those companies were incorporated under it."
Bubble Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Surprised? I bet that you are.

dear, are you saying that in the 1720's they had corporations like the one we have today?

Well, shares were issued, the companies used the cash as capital to start ventures, and people made or lost money both on what they did and the value of their shares. They even had bubbles, created both great wealth and lost fortunes, so what do you think? Is that the Easter Bunny or a corporation?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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 considered a flat sales tax or property tax to be examples of the rich paying more than their share, so by modern liberal terms he was a right-wing reactionary.

Smith opposed taxes on wages and necessities, but not on wealth, rents, and luxuries. That doesn't sound very right wing to me. The rich are taking a beating eh?