Adam Smith was a Marxist

[georgephillip]

A "mixed economy" is another way of saying "capitalism." For all practical purposes, "socialism" and "communism are the same exact thing. There are no others.

A "mixed economy" has two poles with a purely competitive market like that envisioned by Adam Smith at one end and a single seller operation like the Post Office at the other. In between you find oligopolistic concerns like Microsoft or Google that dominate their respective niches because of their size and political clout. Additionally, socialism and communism differ fundamentally in that one argues from each according to his abilities to each according to his work, versus from each according to her abilities to each according to her needs. You have every right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

 

[bripat9643]

People who attack capitalism are invariably commies. What's the alternative to capitalism if not communism?

Socialism, a Mixed Economy, and a dozen other systems, dummy.

A "mixed economy" is another way of saying "capitalism." For all practical purposes, "socialism" and "communism are the same exact thing. There are no others.

You're an idiot, a total moron: Economic system - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I just know a lot about economics and left-wing propaganda.

No, you are utterly clueless my little infant, obviously. One of those who screams the Nazis were Socialist, because it's in their name...

Those various "economic systems" listed in your WIki were just various points on the "free enterprise <--------> command economy" continuum. The only real difference is the propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

A "mixed economy" is another way of saying "capitalism." For all practical purposes, "socialism" and "communism are the same exact thing. There are no others.

A "mixed economy" has two poles with a purely competitive market like that envisioned by Adam Smith at one end and a single seller operation like the Post Office at the other. In between you find oligopolistic concerns like Microsoft or Google that dominate their respective niches because of their size and political clout. Additionally, socialism and communism differ fundamentally in that one argues from each according to his abilities to each according to his work, versus from each according to her abilities to each according to her needs. You have every right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Left-wingers like you will call a mixed economy "capitalist" when arguing one point, and call it "socialist" when arguing another point. All economies are on the "free enterprise<---------->command economy" continuum. The only real difference between "socialism" and "communism" is how serious the supporters are about putting their agenda into practice. You can't have real socialism without expropriating private property and that always gets real messy and ends up meaning a lot of people get shot. So if people are not real dedicated socialists, they halt the process of converting to real socialism long before that point and end up with a mixed economy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Socialism, a Mixed Economy, and a dozen other systems, dummy.

A "mixed economy" is another way of saying "capitalism." For all practical purposes, "socialism" and "communism are the same exact thing. There are no others.

You're an idiot, a total moron: Economic system - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I just know a lot about economics and left-wing propaganda.

No, you are utterly clueless my little infant, obviously. One of those who screams the Nazis were Socialist, because it's in their name...

Those various "economic systems" listed in your WIki were just various points on the "free enterprise <--------> command economy" continuum. The only real difference is the propaganda.

No my little infant, it's the different between hunting and gathering, working for the man drawing a paycheck, and getting your needs taken care of by the collective. That is a vast field of economic thought which you are unable to grasp. All you know is the dogma capitalism = good, not capitalism = bad, because that's all you ever manage to say about it.

 

[Contumacious]

Check out this site. David Korten offers an in depth understanding of Adam Smith...

The Betrayal of Adam Smith - Excerpt:

"Smith strongly disliked both governments and corporations. He viewed government primarily as an instrument for extracting taxes to subsidize elites and intervening in the market to protect corporate monopolies."

isn't learning fun?

If corporate libertarians had a serious allegiance to market principles and human rights, they would be calling for policies aimed at achieving the conditions under which markets function in a democratic fashion in the public interest. ."

Yo dingle berry


Who the fucketh defines "the public interest."


. Let me guess, Elizabeth Warren, right?


.

Yo dingle berry


Who the fucketh defines "the public interest."


. Let me guess, Elizabeth Warren, right?

.

 

[georgephillip]

Who the fucketh defines "the public interest."

The pubic?

 

[Bfgrn]

Check out this site. David Korten offers an in depth understanding of Adam Smith...

The Betrayal of Adam Smith - Excerpt:

"Smith strongly disliked both governments and corporations. He viewed government primarily as an instrument for extracting taxes to subsidize elites and intervening in the market to protect corporate monopolies."

isn't learning fun?

If corporate libertarians had a serious allegiance to market principles and human rights, they would be calling for policies aimed at achieving the conditions under which markets function in a democratic fashion in the public interest. ."

Yo dingle berry


Who the fucketh defines "the public interest."


. Let me guess, Elizabeth Warren, right?


.

Many have, from our founders to my favorite liberal...John F. Kennedy

Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963

Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.

 

[Bfgrn]

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?

Check out this site. David Korten offers an in depth understanding of Adam Smith...

The Betrayal of Adam Smith - Excerpt

Why would we care what some commie Harvard professor has to say about Adam Smith?

Why would you care what Adam Smith ACTUALLY SAID...it doesn't get any attention on Faux News

 

[Bfgrn]

A "mixed economy" is another way of saying "capitalism." For all practical purposes, "socialism" and "communism are the same exact thing. There are no others.

A "mixed economy" has two poles with a purely competitive market like that envisioned by Adam Smith at one end and a single seller operation like the Post Office at the other. In between you find oligopolistic concerns like Microsoft or Google that dominate their respective niches because of their size and political clout. Additionally, socialism and communism differ fundamentally in that one argues from each according to his abilities to each according to his work, versus from each according to her abilities to each according to her needs. You have every right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Left-wingers like you will call a mixed economy "capitalist" when arguing one point, and call it "socialist" when arguing another point. All economies are on the "free enterprise<---------->command economy" continuum. The only real difference between "socialism" and "communism" is how serious the supporters are about putting their agenda into practice. You can't have real socialism without expropriating private property and that always gets real messy and ends up meaning a lot of people get shot. So if people are not real dedicated socialists, they halt the process of converting to real socialism long before that point and end up with a mixed economy.

Mixed economy

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government non-intervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.

Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.

Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)

Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries,

stupid stupid liberal has no idea that we have highest corporate tax in the world!! Thats coming close to laissez faire if you are typical liberal retard??

 

[georgephillip]

. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries,

stupid stupid liberal has no idea that we have highest corporate tax in the world!! Thats coming close to laissez faire if you are typical liberal retard??

"Reuters) - Foreign profits held overseas by U.S. corporations to avoid taxes at home nearly doubled from 2008 to 2013 to top $2.1 trillion, said a private research firm's report, prompting a call for reform by the Senate's top tax law writer."
Untaxed U.S. corporate profits held overseas top 2.1 trillion study Reuters