Adam Smith was a Marxist

[PaintMyHouse]

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

the liberal is afraid to answer!!

See above.

 

[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?

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.

Stop it. You sound silly.

When some dip shit laughable lolberal tries to make the claim that Adam Smith was somehow "Marxist" in socio-economic orientation, you witness the deliberate effort to distort the meaning of words.

Noting that Obumbler's economic and community organizing behavior stem from a Marxist POV is fair because history demonstrates that it's true. Obumbler's "Uncle" Frank was a fucking communist. His personal hero (and Shrillary's too) was Saul fucking Alinsky, for gawd's sake. Obumbler is a left wing liberal and proud of it. That is a mere degree of separation from Marxism.

But no HONEST person would deliberately attempt to dilute the meaning of words like paintedbraincell does in pretending that Adam Smith was anything eben remotely akin to "Marxist."

 

[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!!

See above.

dear, are you saying that in the 1720's they had corporations like the ones we have today? Gee the liberal is now afriad to press his point?? I wonder why?

 

[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

"Larry Elliott writes in the Guardian that Adam Smith would oppose the modern shareholder model of the corporation. Smith, he argues, “would have looked askance at an economy gripped by speculative fever, with the emphasis not on making things but on buying and selling, making a turn, churning, taking a punt, sweating an asset.” Leaving aside for the moment that the distinction between “making” and “buying and selling,” as used here, is entirely specious, is this a fair interpretation of Smith? Elliott continues:

Smith, indeed, predicted what might happen in the Wealth of Nations, when he supported the idea of private companies (or copartneries) against joint stock companies, the equivalent of today’s limited liability firm. In the former, Smith said, each partner was “bound for the debts contracted by the company to the whole extent of his fortune”, a potential liability that tended to concentrate the mind. In joint stock companies, Smith said, shareholders tended to know little about the running of the company, raked off a half-yearly dividend and, if things went wrong, stood only to lose the value of their shares.

“This total exemption from trouble and from risk, beyond a limited sum, encourages many people to become adventurers in joint stock companies who would, upon no account, hazard their own fortunes in any private copartnery. The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people’s money than 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.”

This part he got right.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Adam Smith never met American Parasites and demagogue welfare state politicians.


He never dreamt that demagogue politicians would be corrupt enough to provide welfare benefits in order to acquire power.


.He never dreamt that the populace would demand to be fed, clothe, insured, educated and their thirst quenched in exchange for votes.

So if he were alive today he would be an armed to the teeth Libertarian.

.

.

.


.

 

[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?

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.

Whatever Smith believed, the fact is that the laws of supply and demand determine price.

Marginalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Marginalism is a theory of economics that attempts to explain the discrepancy in the value of goods and services by reference to their secondary, or marginal, utility. The reason why the price of diamonds is higher than that of water, for example, owes to the greater additional satisfaction of the diamonds over the water. Thus, while the water has greater total utility, the diamond has greater marginal utility.[1] The theory has been used in order to explain the difference in wages among essential and non-essential services, such as why the wages of an air-conditioner repairman exceed those of a childcare worker.[2]

The theory arose in the mid-to-late nineteenth century in response to the normative practice of classical economics and growing socialist debates about social and economic activity. Marginalism was an attempt to raise the discipline of economics to the level of objectivity and universalism so that it would not be beholden to normative critiques.

Although the central concept of marginalism is that of marginal utility, marginalists, following the lead of Alfred Marshall, drew upon the idea of marginal physical productivity in explanation of cost. The neoclassical tradition that emerged from British marginalism abandoned the concept of utility and gave marginal rates of substitution a more fundamental role in analysis.[citation needed] Marginalism is an integral part of mainstream economic theory.​

 

[Political Junky]

"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?

When do you plan to move up to capital?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Smith in a nutshell on Corporations: You make much better decisions when it's your kids that won't eat, not those of some anonymous investor, and he was right of course.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

"Larry Elliott writes in the Guardian that Adam Smith would oppose the modern shareholder model of the corporation. Smith, he argues, “would have looked askance at an economy gripped by speculative fever, with the emphasis not on making things but on buying and selling, making a turn, churning, taking a punt, sweating an asset.” Leaving aside for the moment that the distinction between “making” and “buying and selling,” as used here, is entirely specious, is this a fair interpretation of Smith? Elliott continues:

Smith, indeed, predicted what might happen in the Wealth of Nations, when he supported the idea of private companies (or copartneries) against joint stock companies, the equivalent of today’s limited liability firm. In the former, Smith said, each partner was “bound for the debts contracted by the company to the whole extent of his fortune”, a potential liability that tended to concentrate the mind. In joint stock companies, Smith said, shareholders tended to know little about the running of the company, raked off a half-yearly dividend and, if things went wrong, stood only to lose the value of their shares.

“This total exemption from trouble and from risk, beyond a limited sum, encourages many people to become adventurers in joint stock companies who would, upon no account, hazard their own fortunes in any private copartnery. The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people’s money than 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.”

This part he got right.

too stupid by 10000% The Iphone6 plus and all the other toys that saintly corporations invent for the masses to enjoy have transformed the world more in 100 years than anything else did in all of human history. Making corporation your enemy is about like making your mother your enemy. One cant be dumber than you are!!

Liberalism is based on pure and total ignorance

 

[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?

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?

WRONG.

Smith (in Wealth of Nations) wrote:

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.​

At least one blogger noted that this is not support for a progressive taxation scheme (on income, by the way); it is SUPPORT for a scheme of taxation that is proportional to income: i.e., a FLAT TAX.

See, Ideas Misrepresenting Adam Smith

Show us how this non-expert, Friedman, is wrong.

 

[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?

Adam Smith never met American Parasites and demagogue welfare state politicians.
He never dreamt that demagogue politicians would be corrupt enough to provide welfare benefits in order to acquire power.
He never dreamt that the populace would demand to be fed, clothe, insured, educated and their thirst quenched in exchange for votes.
So if he were alive today he would be an armed to the teeth Libertarian.
.

Smith had morals. He would have lost his shoe in the ass of any Libertarian who said the kind of nonsense they do here. To him they would have been just what they are, immoral selfish children.

 

[JakeStarkey]

labor is the superior of capital??
if so why does labor need to steal capital at the point of a gun?

Labor demands a fair share.

EB is as stupid or more so than liberals.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Smith in a nutshell on Corporations: You make much better decisions when it's your kids that won't eat, not those of some anonymous investor, and he was right of course.

dear he was right about govt liberal socialist corporations in the 18th Century! Does the dummy understand?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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??

IM and EB are obviously more stupid than liberals, who are obviously not whiz bangs.

 

[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?

WRONG.

Smith (in Wealth of Nations) wrote:

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.​

At least one blogger noted that this is not support for a progressive taxation scheme (on income, by the way); it is SUPPORT for a scheme of taxation that is proportional to income: i.e., a FLAT TAX.

See, Ideas Misrepresenting Adam Smith

Show us how this non-expert, Friedman, is wrong.

Keep at it:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And...

"The ordinary rent of land is, in many cases, owing partly, at least, to the attention and good management of the landlord. A very heavy tax might discourage, too much, this attention and good management. Ground-rents, so far as they exceed the ordinary rent of land, are altogether owing to the good government of the sovereign, which, by protecting the industry either of the whole people or of the inhabitants of some particular place, enables them to pay so much more than its real value for the ground which they build their houses upon; or to make to its owner so much more than compensation for the loss which he might sustain by this use of it. Nothing can be more reasonable, than that a fund, which owes its existence to the good government of the state, should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

To him they would have been just what they are, immoral selfish children.

dear, if libertarians are immoral and selfish give your best example or admit you lack the IQ to defend what you say.

 

[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

"Larry Elliott writes in the Guardian that Adam Smith would oppose the modern shareholder model of the corporation. Smith, he argues, “would have looked askance at an economy gripped by speculative fever, with the emphasis not on making things but on buying and selling, making a turn, churning, taking a punt, sweating an asset.” Leaving aside for the moment that the distinction between “making” and “buying and selling,” as used here, is entirely specious, is this a fair interpretation of Smith? Elliott continues:

Smith, indeed, predicted what might happen in the Wealth of Nations, when he supported the idea of private companies (or copartneries) against joint stock companies, the equivalent of today’s limited liability firm. In the former, Smith said, each partner was “bound for the debts contracted by the company to the whole extent of his fortune”, a potential liability that tended to concentrate the mind. In joint stock companies, Smith said, shareholders tended to know little about the running of the company, raked off a half-yearly dividend and, if things went wrong, stood only to lose the value of their shares.

“This total exemption from trouble and from risk, beyond a limited sum, encourages many people to become adventurers in joint stock companies who would, upon no account, hazard their own fortunes in any private copartnery. The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people’s money than 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.”

This part he got right.

No. You are just not comprehending what you read.

 

[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

"Larry Elliott writes in the Guardian that Adam Smith would oppose the modern shareholder model of the corporation. Smith, he argues, “would have looked askance at an economy gripped by speculative fever, with the emphasis not on making things but on buying and selling, making a turn, churning, taking a punt, sweating an asset.” Leaving aside for the moment that the distinction between “making” and “buying and selling,” as used here, is entirely specious, is this a fair interpretation of Smith? Elliott continues:

Smith, indeed, predicted what might happen in the Wealth of Nations, when he supported the idea of private companies (or copartneries) against joint stock companies, the equivalent of today’s limited liability firm. In the former, Smith said, each partner was “bound for the debts contracted by the company to the whole extent of his fortune”, a potential liability that tended to concentrate the mind. In joint stock companies, Smith said, shareholders tended to know little about the running of the company, raked off a half-yearly dividend and, if things went wrong, stood only to lose the value of their shares.

“This total exemption from trouble and from risk, beyond a limited sum, encourages many people to become adventurers in joint stock companies who would, upon no account, hazard their own fortunes in any private copartnery. The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people’s money than 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.”

This part he got right.

No. You are just not comprehending what you read.

Oh but I am, because I know both Smith, and history.

 

[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??

IM and EB are obviously more stupid than liberals, who are obviously not whiz bangs.

Fakey says ^ dishonest trite tripe like this because Fakey is generally opposed to honesty. What is obvious is that Fakey couldn't argue any of this without once again revealing that he is a left wing liberal ideologue Democrat.