So you love socialism ?????

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope. It's crony capitalism, which is just a form of socialism. Do you really think keeping competition in check is something desirable?

That depends. Competition in the telephone made for major problems so, a monopoly was created and regulated. No such thing is required for socks and underwear. As usual, there is no absolute, you just (childishly) want one to exist.

More bullshit propaganda. What problems did competition in the telephone industry cause? I think the only problem it caused was a decline in Bell Telephone Corp profits.

People couldn't call each other, and the standards were not uniform. Even the basics of American capitalism have to be spoon-fed to your kind:

"Around 1917, the idea that everyone in the country should have phone service and that the government should promote that began being discussed in government. AT&T agreed, saying in a 1917 annual report: "A combination of like activities under proper control and regulation, the service to the public would be better, more progressive, efficient, and economical than competitive systems." In 1918 the federal government nationalized the entire telecommunications industry, with national security as the stated intent. Rates were regulated so that customers in large cities would pay higher rates to subsidize those in more remote areas. Vail was appointed to manage the telephone system with AT&T being paid a percentage of the telephone revenues. AT&T profited well from the nationalization arrangement which ended a year later. States then began regulating rates so that those in rural areas would not have to pay high prices, and competition was highly regulated or prohibited in local markets. Also, potential competitors were forbidden from installing new lines to compete, with state governments wishing to avoid "duplication." The claim was that telephone service was a "natural monopoly," meaning that one firm could better serve the public than two or more. Eventually, AT&T's market share amounted to what most would regard as a monopolistic share."
History of AT&T - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I love public services that pay tax dollars for. Only a savage wouldn't.

You pay 4 times more for "public services" than you would if they were private.

Prove it?

 

[bripat9643]

You're an idiot. Few airlines want to own an airport anymore than trucking companies would want to own a highway. Airlines that have lots of crashes don't tend to be popular with consumers, so every airline would find it in its self-interest to subscribe to an air traffic control service. An airline has to fly to every city in the country, and it would be cost prohibitive for it to own an airport in every location where it had to fly.

You really are a special kind of idiot.

Phuleeze. Courts have never enforced such contracts. When you buy a lift ticket at a ski resort it says the resort is not responsible for any injuries you may incur. However, people sue ski resorts all the time for their injuries and win.

See just above, and say goodbye to your wet-dreams...

You propaganda is obvious horseshit.

It's nothing like propaganda. We have Rustic for that.

It's a blog from a government subsidize leftwing professor - propaganda, in other word.

No one who understands capitalism thinks the government has no role. It doesn't matter a damn the source, the point is the same.

"Adam Smith is most famous for his advocacy of free markets. What’s less known is that Smith saw an important role for government in society, albeit he thought that government should be limited. In his most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith explains that there are three legitimate functions which should be performed by the government:

"The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force. But the expense both of preparing this military force in time of peace, and of employing it in time of war, is very different in the different states of society, in the different periods of improvement." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 1).

This one is straight forward and save for a bunch of cranky anarchists, most people agree with it.

"The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires two very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 2).

This one is also almost universally accepted.

"The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires, too, very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 3).
Adam Smith on the functions of government

Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations" over 250 years ago. Economists have learned a few things since then. The fact that you think his book is the final authority on economics only shows what an ignoramus you are. If you want to learn how society would function without government, read here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. It's crony capitalism, which is just a form of socialism. Do you really think keeping competition in check is something desirable?

That depends. Competition in the telephone made for major problems so, a monopoly was created and regulated. No such thing is required for socks and underwear. As usual, there is no absolute, you just (childishly) want one to exist.

More bullshit propaganda. What problems did competition in the telephone industry cause? I think the only problem it caused was a decline in Bell Telephone Corp profits.

People couldn't call each other, and the standards were not uniform. Even the basics of American capitalism have to be spoon-fed to your kind:

"Around 1917, the idea that everyone in the country should have phone service and that the government should promote that began being discussed in government. AT&T agreed, saying in a 1917 annual report: "A combination of like activities under proper control and regulation, the service to the public would be better, more progressive, efficient, and economical than competitive systems." In 1918 the federal government nationalized the entire telecommunications industry, with national security as the stated intent. Rates were regulated so that customers in large cities would pay higher rates to subsidize those in more remote areas. Vail was appointed to manage the telephone system with AT&T being paid a percentage of the telephone revenues. AT&T profited well from the nationalization arrangement which ended a year later. States then began regulating rates so that those in rural areas would not have to pay high prices, and competition was highly regulated or prohibited in local markets. Also, potential competitors were forbidden from installing new lines to compete, with state governments wishing to avoid "duplication." The claim was that telephone service was a "natural monopoly," meaning that one firm could better serve the public than two or more. Eventually, AT&T's market share amounted to what most would regard as a monopolistic share."
History of AT&T - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your reference makes a claim with no visible means of support. Where is the proof?

Here's the proof that your claims are bullshit:

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1994/11/cj14n2-6.pdf

 

[imawhosure]

Venezuela Declares Another Emergency: It Has Run Out of Food

Getty Images
by FRANCES MARTEL12 Feb 2016225

Venezuela’s opposition legislature has declared a “nutritional emergency,” proclaiming that the country simply does not have enough food to feed its population. The move comes after years of socialist rationing and shortages that forced millions to wait on lines lasting as long as six hours for a pint of milk, a bag of flour, or carton of cooking oil.
Opposition legislator Julio Borgesannounced the measure on Thursday, which would allow the legislature to push for more imports on basic food goods and inspect government-owned food companies to ensure they are meeting efficiency standards. “This will make corporations and expropriated lands produce food again, will simplify the process of national and foreign investment, and establish incentives for investors,” Borges promised.

Socialist party members are arguing that the decree goes beyond the scope of the power of the legislature and cannot override the executive decree President Nicolás Maduro put into motion in January, which declared an “economic emergency” and allowed the government to further intervene in private corporations. Venezuela’s Supreme Court extended the viability of the emergency decree this week, in a move many consider an attempt to keep the opposition legislature from asserting too much power over the food industry in Venezuela.


Venezuela Declares New Emergency: It Has Run Out of Food

This thread has grown to 25 pages, lol. What have we discovered bear?

For me, I have never seen so many American "little adults" who demand something for "fwee!" They probably haven't earned more than 25 cents in their lifetimes, but demand "fwee" everything.

Work for it to actually earn it? No, "fwee!" What are most of them doing? Sitting in their parents basement in their under wear, eating Cheetos on the internet demanding "fwee stuff!"

Whineeeeee, sniveling, little "fwee" demanders of everything, who can't even buy anything worth a damn, unless it is the latest and greatest smartphone.

They of course are the BRILLIANT ones, which explains why they put an age limitation on the Presidency, lol! There mantra has been, and always will be........."if it is fweeeeeeeee, it is for meeeee!" As they eat their cheetos in their parents basement, and give all of us a dressing down on what to think politically.

Don't these "wet behind the ears" panty waists realize, that if they didn't have a vote, we would be laughing at their ignorance and putting them on ignore? Don't they care that one of the youngest nations on earth surpassed all of these SOCIALIST society's who have been in business for hundreds, upon hundreds of years? Oh no, just give them something "fwee!"

And what about that awful evil word "war?" What if some crackpot decides to invade Sweden? Italy? Greece? France? Think those governments are going to tell the populace to hit the invaders over the head with all their "fwee" stuff to repel them?

Those SOCIALIST countries, and these SOCIALIST clowns here, have but one thing to thank for the lives they lead. It is called, THE UNITED STATES MILITARY, period! Without them, these countries would long ago been gobbled up. Hell, we had to save all their derrieres once already!

From the dawn of mankind until, and including the present; anyone who has anything is a target for those who do not. For virtually the last 75 to 80 years, The United States of America has kept the peace, and it didn't create what it has through SOCIALISM. It didn't protect its people and others in the world by making nice. Who did Kuwait and Saudi Arabia call? Was it Sweden?

This country and its people spent her hard earned treasure to defeat Marxism/socialism. It wasn't because we knew better, it was because they BOTH wanted to enslave the world.

Now that Europe wants to change the name to DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM, we do not care, as long as they keep it over there. Why? Because NO form of SOCIALISM can defeat our system of economics. It has been proven, over, and over, and over, and over, again. We didn't get where we are because we mirrored them people, we got here because we DIDN'T!

But now, we have a bunch of "wet behind the ears" panty waists beating their proverbial drums for "fwee" stuff again. All of Europe loves this, because then we won't be able to clean their clocks economically. We will behind the SOCIALIST 8 ball, just, like, them.

So the question is..................are you going to listen to what history tells.......in fact SCREAMS to everyone............or rather, are you going to listen to a bunch of young, "wet behind the ears," nincompoops sitting in their parents basements, eating Cheetos expounding on politics because their left wing professors are as good at brainwashing as the CIA is?

The United States economy is like a tight spring, waiting to explode if the shackles are removed, and unleash upon the world the second industrial revolution, along with heavy tech, and new energy. Think the government can guide that do you? They who can't build a reasonable website? They who can't get veterans healthcare? They who can't even balance a budget?

Socialism? SOCIALISM! You weak young Americans, many people are correct............if you were in charge, we would have lost WWII too!

Forget your "fwee" stuff, you ain't getting crapola. Go out, get a job, and EARN it, or let the rest of us pass you by! Hillary is going to hose Bernie, and we are going to hose her. Get used to it, GET A FREAKIN JOB!

 

[bripat9643]

I love public services that pay tax dollars for. Only a savage wouldn't.

You pay 4 times more for "public services" than you would if they were private.

Prove it?

Just compare the cost of private fire service with public fire service.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. It's crony capitalism, which is just a form of socialism. Do you really think keeping competition in check is something desirable?

That depends. Competition in the telephone made for major problems so, a monopoly was created and regulated. No such thing is required for socks and underwear. As usual, there is no absolute, you just (childishly) want one to exist.

Bunk.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1994/11/cj14n2-6.pdf​

When Alexander Graham Bell patented the telephone on March 7, 1876, few people realized just how important his new invention would become for American commerce and society in general. America was still in love with the telegraph and saw little immediate use for the telephone. Mark Twain even likened investment in the new technology to “wildcat speculation.” Western Union, the most powerful telegraph company of the era, actually passed up the opportunity to buy the Bell patents for $100,000 believing the device was nothing more than a passing novelty.

Unfortunately for Western Union, the telephone turned out to be anything but a passing fad. Use of the device slowly gained acceptance, primarily among business users. Yet, compared to later decades, this Bell patent monopoly era was characterized by limited growth of service. From 1880 to 1895, average daily calls per 1,000 of population rose from only 4.8 to 37. Contrasting this 15-year patent monopoly period with the competitive period that followed the expiration of the Bell patents in 1894, average daily calls per 1,000 people jumped from 37 in 1895 to 391.4 in 1910. The number of telephones per 1,000 people also showed much more dramatic expansion during the competitive period after patent expiration than before. Telephones per 1,000 people rose from only 1.1 in 1880 to 4.8 in 1895, but skyrocketed to 82 by 1910. (See Table 1.)

Clearly, the Bell patent monopoly period was not as beneficial for the extension of service as the competitive period that would follow. Yet, by the end of its patent monopoly period, the Bell System had grown large enough to pose a formidable challenge to Western Union, the same company that had failed to buy up the original patents just 20 years earlier. But, with the expiration of their crucial patents between 1893—94, the Bell system faced an uncertain future. Although Bell had filed over 600 patent infringement suits to defend its 269 CATO JOURNAL 900-plus patents during this period, the company had no choice but to try its hardest to fend off the many new firms that were waiting for a chance to gain access to this lucrative new market. The Bell monopoly was, at least temporarily, dead.

SPREAD OF TABLE 1 TELEPHONE SERVICE, 1880—1920
Year, Average Daily Calls Per 1,000 Population, Telephones Per 1,000 Population
1880 4.8 1.1
1885 13.3 2.7
1890 23.0 3.7
1895 37.0 4.8
1900 103.6 17.6
1905 258.7 48.8
1910 391.4 82.0
1915 446.0 103.9
1920 486.5 123.9
SouRcE: Hyman, Toole, and Avellis (1987: 93).

The Development of Competition, 1894—1913 Despite AT&T’s rapid rise to market dominance, independent competitors began springing up shortly after the original patents expired in 1893 and 1894. These competitors grew by servicing areas not served by the Bell System, but then quickly began invading AT&T’s turf, especially areas where Bell service was poor. According to industry historian Gerald W. Brock (1981: 112), by the end of 1894 over 80 new independent competitors had already grabbed 5 percent of total market share. The number of independent firms continued to rise dramatically such that just after the turn of the century, over 3,000 competitors existed. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio each had over 200 telephone companies competing within their borders (Brock 1981: 111). By 1907, non-Bell firms continued to develop and were operating 51 percent of the telephone businesses in local markets. Prices were driven down as many urban subscribers were able tochoose among competing providers. AT&T’s profits and prices during this period began to shrink due to increased competition. Whereas AT&T had earned an average return on investment of 46 percent in the late 1800s, by 1906 their return had dropped to 8 percent (Hyman et al. 1987: 78). As Brock (1981: 122) noted, this competitive period brought gains unimaginable just a fewyears earlier, 270 UNNATURAL MONOPOLY After seventeen years of monopoly, the United States had a limited telephone system of 270,000 phones concentrated in the centers of the cities, with service generally unavailable in the outlying areas. After thirteen years of competition, the United States had an extensive system ofsix million telephones, almost evenlydivided between Bell and the independents, with service available practically anywhere in the country. ​

 

[Rustic]

You're an idiot. Few airlines want to own an airport anymore than trucking companies would want to own a highway. Airlines that have lots of crashes don't tend to be popular with consumers, so every airline would find it in its self-interest to subscribe to an air traffic control service. An airline has to fly to every city in the country, and it would be cost prohibitive for it to own an airport in every location where it had to fly.

You really are a special kind of idiot.

Phuleeze. Courts have never enforced such contracts. When you buy a lift ticket at a ski resort it says the resort is not responsible for any injuries you may incur. However, people sue ski resorts all the time for their injuries and win.

See just above, and say goodbye to your wet-dreams...

You propaganda is obvious horseshit.

It's nothing like propaganda. We have Rustic for that.

It's a blog from a government subsidize leftwing professor - propaganda, in other word.

No one who understands capitalism thinks the government has no role. It doesn't matter a damn the source, the point is the same.

"Adam Smith is most famous for his advocacy of free markets. What’s less known is that Smith saw an important role for government in society, albeit he thought that government should be limited. In his most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith explains that there are three legitimate functions which should be performed by the government:

"The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force. But the expense both of preparing this military force in time of peace, and of employing it in time of war, is very different in the different states of society, in the different periods of improvement." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 1).

This one is straight forward and save for a bunch of cranky anarchists, most people agree with it.

"The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires two very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 2).

This one is also almost universally accepted.

"The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires, too, very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 3).
Adam Smith on the functions of government

Of course there is place for government, as long as it's not seen, heard and most importantly not felt.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I love public services that pay tax dollars for. Only a savage wouldn't.

You pay 4 times more for "public services" than you would if they were private.

Prove it?

Just compare the cost of private fire service with public fire service.

Expensive versus cheap. And the public one comes even if you missed a payment.

 

[Rustic]

Venezuela Declares Another Emergency: It Has Run Out of Food

Getty Images
by FRANCES MARTEL12 Feb 2016225

Venezuela’s opposition legislature has declared a “nutritional emergency,” proclaiming that the country simply does not have enough food to feed its population. The move comes after years of socialist rationing and shortages that forced millions to wait on lines lasting as long as six hours for a pint of milk, a bag of flour, or carton of cooking oil.
Opposition legislator Julio Borgesannounced the measure on Thursday, which would allow the legislature to push for more imports on basic food goods and inspect government-owned food companies to ensure they are meeting efficiency standards. “This will make corporations and expropriated lands produce food again, will simplify the process of national and foreign investment, and establish incentives for investors,” Borges promised.

Socialist party members are arguing that the decree goes beyond the scope of the power of the legislature and cannot override the executive decree President Nicolás Maduro put into motion in January, which declared an “economic emergency” and allowed the government to further intervene in private corporations. Venezuela’s Supreme Court extended the viability of the emergency decree this week, in a move many consider an attempt to keep the opposition legislature from asserting too much power over the food industry in Venezuela.


Venezuela Declares New Emergency: It Has Run Out of Food

This thread has grown to 25 pages, lol. What have we discovered bear?

For me, I have never seen so many American "little adults" who demand something for "fwee!" They probably haven't earned more than 25 cents in their lifetimes, but demand "fwee" everything.

Work for it to actually earn it? No, "fwee!" What are most of them doing? Sitting in their parents basement in their under wear, eating Cheetos on the internet demanding "fwee stuff!"

Whineeeeee, sniveling, little "fwee" demanders of everything, who can't even buy anything worth a damn, unless it is the latest and greatest smartphone.

They of course are the BRILLIANT ones, which explains why they put an age limitation on the Presidency, lol! There mantra has been, and always will be........."if it is fweeeeeeeee, it is for meeeee!" As they eat their cheetos in their parents basement, and give all of us a dressing down on what to think politically.

Don't these "wet behind the ears" panty waists realize, that if they didn't have a vote, we would be laughing at their ignorance and putting them on ignore? Don't they care that one of the youngest nations on earth surpassed all of these SOCIALIST society's who have been in business for hundreds, upon hundreds of years? Oh no, just give them something "fwee!"

And what about that awful evil word "war?" What if some crackpot decides to invade Sweden? Italy? Greece? France? Think those governments are going to tell the populace to hit the invaders over the head with all their "fwee" stuff to repel them?

Those SOCIALIST countries, and these SOCIALIST clowns here, have but one thing to thank for the lives they lead. It is called, THE UNITED STATES MILITARY, period! Without them, these countries would long ago been gobbled up. Hell, we had to save all their derrieres once already!

From the dawn of mankind until, and including the present; anyone who has anything is a target for those who do not. For virtually the last 75 to 80 years, The United States of America has kept the peace, and it didn't create what it has through SOCIALISM. It didn't protect its people and others in the world by making nice. Who did Kuwait and Saudi Arabia call? Was it Sweden?

This country and its people spent her hard earned treasure to defeat Marxism/socialism. It wasn't because we knew better, it was because they BOTH wanted to enslave the world.

Now that Europe wants to change the name to DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM, we do not care, as long as they keep it over there. Why? Because NO form of SOCIALISM can defeat our system of economics. It has been proven, over, and over, and over, and over, again. We didn't get where we are because we mirrored them people, we got here because we DIDN'T!

But now, we have a bunch of "wet behind the ears" panty waists beating their proverbial drums for "fwee" stuff again. All of Europe loves this, because then we won't be able to clean their clocks economically. We will behind the SOCIALIST 8 ball, just, like, them.

So the question is..................are you going to listen to what history tells.......in fact SCREAMS to everyone............or rather, are you going to listen to a bunch of young, "wet behind the ears," nincompoops sitting in their parents basements, eating Cheetos expounding on politics because their left wing professors are as good at brainwashing as the CIA is?

The United States economy is like a tight spring, waiting to explode if the shackles are removed, and unleash upon the world the second industrial revolution, along with heavy tech, and new energy. Think the government can guide that do you? They who can't build a reasonable website? They who can't get veterans healthcare? They who can't even balance a budget?

Socialism? SOCIALISM! You weak young Americans, many people are correct............if you were in charge, we would have lost WWII too!

Forget your "fwee" stuff, you ain't getting crapola. Go out, get a job, and EARN it, or let the rest of us pass you by! Hillary is going to hose Bernie, and we are going to hose her. Get used to it, GET A FREAKIN JOB!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

See just above, and say goodbye to your wet-dreams...

You propaganda is obvious horseshit.

It's nothing like propaganda. We have Rustic for that.

It's a blog from a government subsidize leftwing professor - propaganda, in other word.

No one who understands capitalism thinks the government has no role. It doesn't matter a damn the source, the point is the same.

"Adam Smith is most famous for his advocacy of free markets. What’s less known is that Smith saw an important role for government in society, albeit he thought that government should be limited. In his most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith explains that there are three legitimate functions which should be performed by the government:

"The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force. But the expense both of preparing this military force in time of peace, and of employing it in time of war, is very different in the different states of society, in the different periods of improvement." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 1).

This one is straight forward and save for a bunch of cranky anarchists, most people agree with it.

"The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires two very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 2).

This one is also almost universally accepted.

"The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires, too, very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 3).
Adam Smith on the functions of government

Of course there is place for government, as long as it's not seen, heard and most importantly not felt.

Utter nonsense. It's not a child, of 1870 England.

 

[Rustic]

You propaganda is obvious horseshit.

It's nothing like propaganda. We have Rustic for that.

It's a blog from a government subsidize leftwing professor - propaganda, in other word.

No one who understands capitalism thinks the government has no role. It doesn't matter a damn the source, the point is the same.

"Adam Smith is most famous for his advocacy of free markets. What’s less known is that Smith saw an important role for government in society, albeit he thought that government should be limited. In his most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith explains that there are three legitimate functions which should be performed by the government:

"The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force. But the expense both of preparing this military force in time of peace, and of employing it in time of war, is very different in the different states of society, in the different periods of improvement." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 1).

This one is straight forward and save for a bunch of cranky anarchists, most people agree with it.

"The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires two very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 2).

This one is also almost universally accepted.

"The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires, too, very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 3).
Adam Smith on the functions of government

Of course there is place for government, as long as it's not seen, heard and most importantly not felt.

Utter nonsense. It's not a child, of 1870 England.

Yes, socialist is an childish concept...

 

[Rustic]

 

[PaintMyHouse]

See just above, and say goodbye to your wet-dreams...

You propaganda is obvious horseshit.

It's nothing like propaganda. We have Rustic for that.

It's a blog from a government subsidize leftwing professor - propaganda, in other word.

No one who understands capitalism thinks the government has no role. It doesn't matter a damn the source, the point is the same.

"Adam Smith is most famous for his advocacy of free markets. What’s less known is that Smith saw an important role for government in society, albeit he thought that government should be limited. In his most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith explains that there are three legitimate functions which should be performed by the government:

"The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force. But the expense both of preparing this military force in time of peace, and of employing it in time of war, is very different in the different states of society, in the different periods of improvement." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 1).

This one is straight forward and save for a bunch of cranky anarchists, most people agree with it.

"The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires two very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 2).

This one is also almost universally accepted.

"The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires, too, very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 3).
Adam Smith on the functions of government

Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations" over 250 years ago. Economists have learned a few things since then. The fact that you think his book is the final authority on economics only shows what an ignoramus you are. If you want to learn how society would function without government, read here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society

Capitalism does not function without government, and we have learned a few things as well which is why we don't have the government of 230 years ago.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's nothing like propaganda. We have Rustic for that.

It's a blog from a government subsidize leftwing professor - propaganda, in other word.

No one who understands capitalism thinks the government has no role. It doesn't matter a damn the source, the point is the same.

"Adam Smith is most famous for his advocacy of free markets. What’s less known is that Smith saw an important role for government in society, albeit he thought that government should be limited. In his most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith explains that there are three legitimate functions which should be performed by the government:

"The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force. But the expense both of preparing this military force in time of peace, and of employing it in time of war, is very different in the different states of society, in the different periods of improvement." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 1).

This one is straight forward and save for a bunch of cranky anarchists, most people agree with it.

"The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires two very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 2).

This one is also almost universally accepted.

"The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires, too, very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 3).
Adam Smith on the functions of government

Of course there is place for government, as long as it's not seen, heard and most importantly not felt.

Utter nonsense. It's not a child, of 1870 England.

Yes, socialist is an childish concept...

Socialism works, so sad for you who doesn't understand it, or capitalism, at all.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

See just above, and say goodbye to your wet-dreams...

You propaganda is obvious horseshit.

It's nothing like propaganda. We have Rustic for that.

It's a blog from a government subsidize leftwing professor - propaganda, in other word.

No one who understands capitalism thinks the government has no role. It doesn't matter a damn the source, the point is the same.

"Adam Smith is most famous for his advocacy of free markets. What’s less known is that Smith saw an important role for government in society, albeit he thought that government should be limited. In his most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith explains that there are three legitimate functions which should be performed by the government:

"The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force. But the expense both of preparing this military force in time of peace, and of employing it in time of war, is very different in the different states of society, in the different periods of improvement." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 1).

This one is straight forward and save for a bunch of cranky anarchists, most people agree with it.

"The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires two very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 2).

This one is also almost universally accepted.

"The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires, too, very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 3).
Adam Smith on the functions of government

Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations" over 250 years ago. Economists have learned a few things since then. The fact that you think his book is the final authority on economics only shows what an ignoramus you are. If you want to learn how society would function without government, read here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society

This wet-dream of yours doesn't exist, and never will.

 

[Rustic]

It's a blog from a government subsidize leftwing professor - propaganda, in other word.

No one who understands capitalism thinks the government has no role. It doesn't matter a damn the source, the point is the same.

"Adam Smith is most famous for his advocacy of free markets. What’s less known is that Smith saw an important role for government in society, albeit he thought that government should be limited. In his most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith explains that there are three legitimate functions which should be performed by the government:

"The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force. But the expense both of preparing this military force in time of peace, and of employing it in time of war, is very different in the different states of society, in the different periods of improvement." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 1).

This one is straight forward and save for a bunch of cranky anarchists, most people agree with it.

"The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires two very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 2).

This one is also almost universally accepted.

"The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires, too, very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 3).
Adam Smith on the functions of government

Of course there is place for government, as long as it's not seen, heard and most importantly not felt.

Utter nonsense. It's not a child, of 1870 England.

Yes, socialist is an childish concept...

Socialism works, so sad for you who doesn't understand it, or capitalism, at all.

Socialism can't work long-term, it's not economically viable...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No one who understands capitalism thinks the government has no role. It doesn't matter a damn the source, the point is the same.

"Adam Smith is most famous for his advocacy of free markets. What’s less known is that Smith saw an important role for government in society, albeit he thought that government should be limited. In his most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith explains that there are three legitimate functions which should be performed by the government:

"The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force. But the expense both of preparing this military force in time of peace, and of employing it in time of war, is very different in the different states of society, in the different periods of improvement." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 1).

This one is straight forward and save for a bunch of cranky anarchists, most people agree with it.

"The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires two very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 2).

This one is also almost universally accepted.

"The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires, too, very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." (WN, book V, chap. 1, part 3).
Adam Smith on the functions of government

Of course there is place for government, as long as it's not seen, heard and most importantly not felt.

Utter nonsense. It's not a child, of 1870 England.

Yes, socialist is an childish concept...

Socialism works, so sad for you who doesn't understand it, or capitalism, at all.

Socialism can't work long-term, it's not economically viable...

Oh, but it is, you just have no clue how the hell that can be? You post only from ignorance. Learn capitalism, then socialism. Neither are what you believe.

 

[Rustic]

Of course there is place for government, as long as it's not seen, heard and most importantly not felt.

Utter nonsense. It's not a child, of 1870 England.

Yes, socialist is an childish concept...

Socialism works, so sad for you who doesn't understand it, or capitalism, at all.

Socialism can't work long-term, it's not economically viable...

Oh, but it is, you just have no clue how the hell that can be? You post only from ignorance. Learn capitalism, then socialism. Neither are what you believe.

Socialism has been tried hundreds of times, 100% failure rate.

 

[Rustic]