PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #41
See above.dear, are you saying that in the 1720's they had corporations like the ones we have today?
the liberal is afraid to answer!!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
See above.dear, are you saying that in the 1720's they had corporations like the ones we have today?
the liberal is afraid to answer!!
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.
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?See above.dear, are you saying that in the 1720's they had corporations like the ones we have today?
the liberal is afraid to answer!!
"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: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
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.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?
When do you plan to move up to capital?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."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.
UBER slow applies to this liberal!
Time to show some character. Do you really want to be a liberal all your life?
"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: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
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.
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?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 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.Adam Smith never met American Parasites and demagogue welfare state politicians.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?
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.
.
Labor demands a fair share.labor is the superior of capital??
if so why does labor need to steal capital at the point of a gun?
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.
IM and EB are obviously more stupid than liberals, who are obviously not whiz bangs.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.
Keep at it: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?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.
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.
To him they would have been just what they are, immoral selfish children.
"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: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
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.
Oh but I am, because I know both Smith, and history."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: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
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.
IM and EB are obviously more stupid than liberals, who are obviously not whiz bangs.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.