Adam Smith was a Marxist

[PaintMyHouse]

Did I not say it wasn't a logical question, but a moral one? it doesn't matter what you would do, a moral person would run after the child, regardless of who it belonged to, but not you my little infant, you are out only for #1.

You don't pose a valid example of a moral dilemma by creating a situation that is utterly irrational. You might as well start out claiming "suppose you wanted to burn $1 million."

There's nothing irrational about a child running into the street. It happens all the time and moral people go after the child, no questions asked. As I said, you'd have to be moral to get it, so you won't.

It's irrational for an adult to allow a small child to wander near a busy street. In the first place, where are the child's parents? Why aren't they supervising him? The first thing a responsible adult would do is pick up the child and take him to the most likely place to find his parents. Not doing that would be irresponsible. That is, it would be irrational. Your scenario requires a whole series of irrational decisions to occur. That's why it virtually never happens.

I never knew any action taken in a statistically unlikely scenario was rendered morally inert!

It's not that the even it unlikely. It's the fact that an entire series of immoral decisions prior to the final circumstance are required for it to happen. In the first place, the child's parent allowed it to wander off unattended. Then another adult had to watch it approach a busy street and to nothing until the child is about to get run down by a car.

Pure idiocy.

No, it's reality, but you are neither moral nor honest. It's alright, you answered the question with Me, Myself, and I long ago.

 

[Paperman299]

Did I not say it wasn't a logical question, but a moral one? it doesn't matter what you would do, a moral person would run after the child, regardless of who it belonged to, but not you my little infant, you are out only for #1.

You don't pose a valid example of a moral dilemma by creating a situation that is utterly irrational. You might as well start out claiming "suppose you wanted to burn $1 million."

There's nothing irrational about a child running into the street. It happens all the time and moral people go after the child, no questions asked. As I said, you'd have to be moral to get it, so you won't.

It's irrational for an adult to allow a small child to wander near a busy street. In the first place, where are the child's parents? Why aren't they supervising him? The first thing a responsible adult would do is pick up the child and take him to the most likely place to find his parents. Not doing that would be irresponsible. That is, it would be irrational. Your scenario requires a whole series of irrational decisions to occur. That's why it virtually never happens.

I never knew any action taken in a statistically unlikely scenario was rendered morally inert!

It's not that the even it unlikely. It's the fact that an entire series of immoral decisions prior to the final circumstance are required for it to happen. In the first place, the child's parent allowed it to wander off unattended. Then another adult had to watch it approach a busy street and to nothing until the child is about to get run down by a car.

Pure idiocy.

There were some 12,000 years of immoral decisions before you were even born. The question isn't about anyone else's decision, it's about yours.

 

[georgephillip]

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

In perfectly competitive markets, perhaps. That's not the case when crony capitalism corrupts the markets.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't pose a valid example of a moral dilemma by creating a situation that is utterly irrational. You might as well start out claiming "suppose you wanted to burn $1 million."

There's nothing irrational about a child running into the street. It happens all the time and moral people go after the child, no questions asked. As I said, you'd have to be moral to get it, so you won't.

It's irrational for an adult to allow a small child to wander near a busy street. In the first place, where are the child's parents? Why aren't they supervising him? The first thing a responsible adult would do is pick up the child and take him to the most likely place to find his parents. Not doing that would be irresponsible. That is, it would be irrational. Your scenario requires a whole series of irrational decisions to occur. That's why it virtually never happens.

I never knew any action taken in a statistically unlikely scenario was rendered morally inert!

It's not that the even it unlikely. It's the fact that an entire series of immoral decisions prior to the final circumstance are required for it to happen. In the first place, the child's parent allowed it to wander off unattended. Then another adult had to watch it approach a busy street and to nothing until the child is about to get run down by a car.

Pure idiocy.

There were some 12,000 years of immoral decisions before you were even born. The question isn't about anyone else's decision, it's about yours.

Aside from the ones I listed, none of those events were prerequisites for the event PMH describes to occur.

 

[dblack]

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?

I don't give a rat's ass whether God himself is a Marxist.

Based upon the teachings of Jesus, he is...

One of the reasons I'm not a Christian.

 

[whitehall]

Watch out for low information lefties who stumble on a blog and post stuff about a philosopher who wrote a book in 1776. It means they are plumb out of ammunition to defend Obama.

 

[JakeStarkey]

whitehall is a mere ideologue, whose moral worth is a puff of air then gone.

There are no pure markets, so there is no pure supply and demand. Labor always precedes capital, and it always will. We are not in this Great Life alone and to deny others a fair share remains the immoral stain on a person's life.

 

[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."

Congrats on missing the point as hard as possible.

Calling Obama a Marxist and refusing to apply that label to Smith is textbook cognitive dissonance. You don't even have policy arguments, you're going straight for trivia about Obama's upbringing (btw why do far-right cons know SO MUCH about Obama's childhood? Fangirls know less personal trivia about One Direction than you guys know about Obama). Has Obama ever even mentioned Alinsky?

If you want to paint Obama as a Marxist, fine, but be consistent in your definition. Now who's "diluting the meaning of words?"

You are FULL of shit.

Calling Obumbler a Marxist is a recognition of the thing that motivates that lummox.
Calling Smith a Marxist is simply to lie.

painthistoes is pointless because he denies reality to make his would-be points.

You are merely a very weak enabler.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the FuckWit, Ilar, merely mumbles along in whitehall's ideology. Obama is no more a Marxist than Smith.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And the FuckWit, Ilar, merely mumbles along in whitehall's ideology. Obama is no more a Marxist than Smith.

The always dishonest Fakey tosses in his two worthless counterfeit cents.

Again, the dipshit Obumbler -- who wants to fundamentally change America -- HAS established communist philosophical roots and his actions are largely in accord.

Smith was clearly in no way Marxist.

Fakey lies which is the same as saying Fakey posts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ilar displays that he is a FuckWit, nothing more.

 

[Contumacious]

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.


.

No, he wouldn't be. Unlike your lot he had morals.

He never imagined so many low life lazy-ass motherfuckers who reject the work ethic and have turned the voting booth into an ATM machine.

Fuck you , stupid son of a bitch.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So says Conty the FuckWit, and a person whom many of us know the real reason he is a 'libertarian.'

 

[Contumacious]

So says Conty the FuckWit, and a person whom many of us know the real reason he is a 'libertarian.'

If it isn't Comrade Starkiev, parasite extraordinaire.

Comrade, how do you say "suck my rod" in Russian?


..

 

[JakeStarkey]

So says Conty the FuckWit, and a person whom many of us know the real reason he is a 'libertarian.'

If it isn't Comrade Starkiev, parasite extraordinaire.

Comrade, how do you say "suck my rod" in Russian?..

Yup, Conty the FuckWit is very interested in sucking rods.

 

[Contumacious]

So says Conty the FuckWit, and a person whom many of us know the real reason he is a 'libertarian.'

If it isn't Comrade Starkiev, parasite extraordinaire.

Comrade, how do you say "suck my rod" in Russian?..

Yup, Conty the FuckWit is very interested in sucking rods.

Yes, yes Comrade, I do.

But only after they have been properly tenderized.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.


.

No, he wouldn't be. Unlike your lot he had morals.

He never imagined so many low life lazy-ass motherfuckers who reject the work ethic and have turned the voting booth into an ATM machine.

Fuck you , stupid son of a bitch.

So sorry to hear that you don't like what Adam Smith had to say.

 

[IDNeon]

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

For the same reasons that capitalism inevitably reduces humans to chattle slavery.

Or were those hard working slaves just naturally inclined to their position in life?

Same goes for those dumb Walmart employees they should go out and find a $million a year CEO job you know? Cuz there are so many jobs out there.

 

[IDNeon]

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.


.

No, he wouldn't be. Unlike your lot he had morals.

He never imagined so many low life lazy-ass motherfuckers who reject the work ethic and have turned the voting booth into an ATM machine.

Fuck you , stupid son of a bitch.


.

Who is lazy? There are only 154 million jobs in the US and 315 million people fighting for them.

Sorry if you think people who can't make ends meet are "lazy" but you're just stupid.

 

[georgephillip]

Did Smith and Marx agree on which class produces value?
"In the following citations, we discover that what Adam Smith wrote in the 1770s is not so distant from what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would write 70 years later in the famous Communist Manifesto.

"According to Adam Smith: 'The labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master’s profit.”'|1.|

"In Marxist terms, this means that through their labour workers reproduce part of the constant capital |2.| (the quantity of raw materials, energy, percentage of the value of the technical machinery, and so on, that are accounted for in the manufacturing of a given commodity) to which must be added the variable capital corresponding to their wages and the profit made by capitalists, which Karl Marx called surplus value.

"Karl Marx and Adam Smith – each in his own time – both considered that it is the workers not the bosses/capitalists who produce value."

http://cadtm.org/Adam-Smith-is-closer-to-Karl-Marx