Adam Smith was a Marxist

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Start with Rand, who called selfishness moral and for all her preaching couldn't even live the way she said everyone else should.

 

[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.

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

Obviously not.

 

[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?

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."

Here you have Smith advocating a sales tax on luxury goods. That's hardly an endorsement of a Marxist progressive income tax.

 

[Paperman299]

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?"

 

[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.

Obviously not.

If you believe I have it wrong you just go ahead and tell us all eh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

IM is so obviously a fraud who knows very little about economic history.

It is what it is.

 

[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."

Here you have Smith advocating a sales tax on luxury goods. That's hardly an endorsement of a Marxist progressive income tax.

What part of Smith didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?

 

[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.

 

[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?

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.

You have utterly failed to demonstrate that self-interest is immoral when asked multiple times.

 

[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?

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

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

 

[bripat9643]

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."

Here you have Smith advocating a sales tax on luxury goods. That's hardly an endorsement of a Marxist progressive income tax.

What part of Marx didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?

The only tax that Marx ever announced his support for is the progressive income tax.

 

[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?

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

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

I don't think so:

Mark 12:17

And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. And they marveled greatly at him.​

 

[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.

You have utterly failed to demonstrate that self-interest is immoral when asked multiple times.

That is incorrect. You simply can't grasp it. Remember the discussion about running into the street to save a small child totally unrelated to you? You wouldn't do that now would you, unless you were sure of some kind of reward, and you definitely wouldn't if you thought you might die trying, but a moral person would, and they wouldn't expect a reward. You have to have morals to understand that, and you don't.

 

[bripat9643]

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."

Here you have Smith advocating a sales tax on luxury goods. That's hardly an endorsement of a Marxist progressive income tax.

What part of Marx didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?

Really? Can you quote him supporting a tax on luxury goods?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

This shit again?

You morons and your hate site memes - you have no fucking clue what Smith wrote or advocated.

 

[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?

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.

You have utterly failed to demonstrate that self-interest is immoral when asked multiple times.

That is incorrect. You simply can't grasp it. Remember the discussion about running into the street to save a small child totally unrelated to you? You wouldn't do that now would you, unless you were sure of some kind of reward, and you definitely wouldn't if you thought you might die trying, but a moral person would, and they wouldn't expect a reward. You have to have morals to understand that, and you don't.

As I recall that discussion, you got your ass kicked for thinking an adult would let a small child get anywhere near a busy street. I also never said anyone should expect to get any kind of reward other than the emotional kind.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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."

Here you have Smith advocating a sales tax on luxury goods. That's hardly an endorsement of a Marxist progressive income tax.

What part of Marx didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?

The only tax that Marx ever announced his support for is the progressive income tax.

That was one of them alright. Keep going.

Did you know Smith opposed the transfer of wealth through inheritance? Thought it would make you lazy and privileged. More of that Moralist again.

"With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."
Estate tax and the founding fathers You can t take it with you The Economist

Smith, and Jefferson, those damned Marxists.

 

[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?

This shit again?

You morons and your hate site memes - you have no fucking clue what Smith wrote or advocated.

Projection. Read from page one.

 

[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.

You have utterly failed to demonstrate that self-interest is immoral when asked multiple times.

That is incorrect. You simply can't grasp it. Remember the discussion about running into the street to save a small child totally unrelated to you? You wouldn't do that now would you, unless you were sure of some kind of reward, and you definitely wouldn't if you thought you might die trying, but a moral person would, and they wouldn't expect a reward. You have to have morals to understand that, and you don't.

As I recall that discussion, you got your ass kicked for thinking an adult would let a small child get anywhere near a busy street. I also never said anyone should expect to get any kind of reward other than the emotional kind.

You may have thought it got kicked but that was all I needed to show that you two were nothing more than selfish and immoral infants.

 

[bripat9643]

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."

Here you have Smith advocating a sales tax on luxury goods. That's hardly an endorsement of a Marxist progressive income tax.

What part of Marx didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?

The only tax that Marx ever announced his support for is the progressive income tax.

That was one of them alright. Keep going.

Did you know Smith opposed the transfer of wealth through inheritance? Thought it would make you lazy and privileged. More of that Moralist again.

"With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."
Estate tax and the founding fathers You can t take it with you The Economist

Smith, and Jefferson, those damned Marxists.

You didn't quote Marx supporting a tax on luxuries.

FAIL!

Furthermore, no state abolished inheritance. They only abolished primogenitor where the entire estate goes to the eldest male child.