Adam Smith was a Marxist

[IDNeon]

Not according to Smith either. BFD.

Value = what some idiot will cut a check for.

"Value is that which a trader will willingly barter the product of his own labor to obtain." - Adam Smith.

Except in our current system "Value" is whatever is set by commodity exchangers who use their $Billions to buy all the available product and the hold it until THEY want to sell it at the BEST price THEY can get for it.

How do you like being a hostage to Billionaires?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You don't post knowledge, you post ideology. And I don't post quotes out of context, ever.

You post memes from the hate sites. Such quotes as may be contained come from George Soros and his minions.

You see, You've not read Smith, you've only read shit on ThinkProgress that you are told is a "gotcha" against the Capitalists.

Let's look at a passage;

{The labour of some of the most respectable orders in the society is, like that of menial servants, unproductive of any value, and does not fix or realize itself in any permanent subject, or vendible commodity, which endures after that labour is past, and for which an equal quantity of labour could afterwards be procured. The sovereign, for example, with all the officers both of justice and war who serve under him, the whole army and navy, are unproductive labourers. They are the servants of the public, and are maintained by a part of the annual produce of the industry of other people.Their service, how honourable, how useful, or how necessary soever, produces nothing for which an equal quantity of service can afterwards be procured. The protection, security, and defence, of the commonwealth, the effect of their labour this year, will not purchase its protection, security, and defence, for the year to come. In the same class must be ranked, some both of the gravest and most important, and some of the most frivolous professions; churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters of all kinds; players, buffoons, musicians, opera-singers, opera-dancers, etc. The labour of the meanest of these has a certain value, regulated by the very same principles which regulate that of every other sort of labour; and that of the noblest and most useful, produces nothing which could afterwards purchase or procure an equal quantity of labour. Like the declamation of the actor, the harangue of the orator, or the tune of the musician, the work of all of them perishes in the very instant of its production.}

- Wealth of Nations, Ch. III

Now, is this consistent with the Marxist claim that Labor creates value? "menial servants, unproductive of any value," Why do you think that this contrasts so radically to the meme you were trained to recite? Does Smith sound like a "Marxist" as you ignorantly claimed? Could it be that the hate site thinking for you lied and manipulated out of context quotes to create an impression which you lack the knowledge to spot and reject?

Let's examine the lie you have been spreading on behalf of the hate sites that Smith sought heavy taxation on "the rich," which you supported with an out of context quote from Say.

{They generally have some, however; and in the payment of taxes, the greatness of their number may compensate, in some measure, the smallness of their contribution. The rent of land and the profits of stock are everywhere, therefore, the principal sources from which unproductive hands derive their subsistence. These are the two sorts of revenue of which the owners have generally most to spare. They might both maintain indifferently, either productive or unproductive hands. They seem, however, to have some predilection for the latter. The expense of a great lord feeds generally more idle than industrious people The rich merchant, though with his capital he maintains industrious people only, yet by his expense, that is, by the employment of his revenue, he feeds commonly the very same sort as the great lord.}

- Wealth of Nations, Ch. V

Funny, that doesn't seem to support your claim at all, and in fact focuses on productive versus non-productive capital, rather than the class warfare you seek to engage in.

I'm more than happy to discuss, and back up, Smith and Say all day long - I have deep knowledge of both.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Except in our current system "Value" is whatever is set by commodity exchangers who use their $Billions to buy all the available product and the hold it until THEY want to sell it at the BEST price THEY can get for it.

How do you like being a hostage to Billionaires?

Your OWS fantasy bears no resemblance to reality.

Smoke another joint, play another round of Modern Warfare, then rant about how unfair it is that you aren't rich...

 

[IDNeon]

You don't post knowledge, you post ideology. And I don't post quotes out of context, ever.

You post memes from the hate sites. Such quotes as may be contained come from George Soros and his minions.

You see, You've not read Smith, you've only read shit on ThinkProgress that you are told is a "gotcha" against the Capitalists.

Let's look at a passage;

{The labour of some of the most respectable orders in the society is, like that of menial servants, unproductive of any value, and does not fix or realize itself in any permanent subject, or vendible commodity, which endures after that labour is past, and for which an equal quantity of labour could afterwards be procured. The sovereign, for example, with all the officers both of justice and war who serve under him, the whole army and navy, are unproductive labourers. They are the servants of the public, and are maintained by a part of the annual produce of the industry of other people.Their service, how honourable, how useful, or how necessary soever, produces nothing for which an equal quantity of service can afterwards be procured. The protection, security, and defence, of the commonwealth, the effect of their labour this year, will not purchase its protection, security, and defence, for the year to come. In the same class must be ranked, some both of the gravest and most important, and some of the most frivolous professions; churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters of all kinds; players, buffoons, musicians, opera-singers, opera-dancers, etc. The labour of the meanest of these has a certain value, regulated by the very same principles which regulate that of every other sort of labour; and that of the noblest and most useful, produces nothing which could afterwards purchase or procure an equal quantity of labour. Like the declamation of the actor, the harangue of the orator, or the tune of the musician, the work of all of them perishes in the very instant of its production.}

- Wealth of Nations, Ch. III

Now, is this consistent with the Marxist claim that Labor creates value? "menial servants, unproductive of any value," Why do you think that this contrasts so radically to the meme you were trained to recite? Does Smith sound like a "Marxist" as you ignorantly claimed? Could it be that the hate site thinking for you lied and manipulated out of context quotes to create an impression which you lack the knowledge to spot and reject?

Let's examine the lie you have been spreading on behalf of the hate sites that Smith sought heavy taxation on "the rich," which you supported with an out of context quote from Say.

{They generally have some, however; and in the payment of taxes, the greatness of their number may compensate, in some measure, the smallness of their contribution. The rent of land and the profits of stock are everywhere, therefore, the principal sources from which unproductive hands derive their subsistence. These are the two sorts of revenue of which the owners have generally most to spare. They might both maintain indifferently, either productive or unproductive hands. They seem, however, to have some predilection for the latter. The expense of a great lord feeds generally more idle than industrious people The rich merchant, though with his capital he maintains industrious people only, yet by his expense, that is, by the employment of his revenue, he feeds commonly the very same sort as the great lord.}

- Wealth of Nations, Ch. V

Funny, that doesn't seem to support your claim at all, and in fact focuses on productive versus non-productive capital, rather than the class warfare you seek to engage in.

I'm more than happy to discuss, and back up, Smith and Say all day long - I have deep knowledge of both.

Did you know Adam Smith called people who live off Rent "parasites" and said that they should not exist and no one should be allowed to charge a rent?

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

 

[bripat9643]

Not according to Smith either. BFD.

Value = what some idiot will cut a check for.

"Value is that which a trader will willingly barter the product of his own labor to obtain." - Adam Smith.

Except in our current system "Value" is whatever is set by commodity exchangers who use their $Billions to buy all the available product and the hold it until THEY want to sell it at the BEST price THEY can get for it.

How do you like being a hostage to Billionaires?

They can only sell it for what other people value it for. Billionaires don't control prices. They only take advantage of them.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't post knowledge, you post ideology. And I don't post quotes out of context, ever.

You post memes from the hate sites. Such quotes as may be contained come from George Soros and his minions.

You see, You've not read Smith, you've only read shit on ThinkProgress that you are told is a "gotcha" against the Capitalists.

Let's look at a passage;

{The labour of some of the most respectable orders in the society is, like that of menial servants, unproductive of any value, and does not fix or realize itself in any permanent subject, or vendible commodity, which endures after that labour is past, and for which an equal quantity of labour could afterwards be procured. The sovereign, for example, with all the officers both of justice and war who serve under him, the whole army and navy, are unproductive labourers. They are the servants of the public, and are maintained by a part of the annual produce of the industry of other people.Their service, how honourable, how useful, or how necessary soever, produces nothing for which an equal quantity of service can afterwards be procured. The protection, security, and defence, of the commonwealth, the effect of their labour this year, will not purchase its protection, security, and defence, for the year to come. In the same class must be ranked, some both of the gravest and most important, and some of the most frivolous professions; churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters of all kinds; players, buffoons, musicians, opera-singers, opera-dancers, etc. The labour of the meanest of these has a certain value, regulated by the very same principles which regulate that of every other sort of labour; and that of the noblest and most useful, produces nothing which could afterwards purchase or procure an equal quantity of labour. Like the declamation of the actor, the harangue of the orator, or the tune of the musician, the work of all of them perishes in the very instant of its production.}

- Wealth of Nations, Ch. III

Now, is this consistent with the Marxist claim that Labor creates value? "menial servants, unproductive of any value," Why do you think that this contrasts so radically to the meme you were trained to recite? Does Smith sound like a "Marxist" as you ignorantly claimed? Could it be that the hate site thinking for you lied and manipulated out of context quotes to create an impression which you lack the knowledge to spot and reject?

Let's examine the lie you have been spreading on behalf of the hate sites that Smith sought heavy taxation on "the rich," which you supported with an out of context quote from Say.

{They generally have some, however; and in the payment of taxes, the greatness of their number may compensate, in some measure, the smallness of their contribution. The rent of land and the profits of stock are everywhere, therefore, the principal sources from which unproductive hands derive their subsistence. These are the two sorts of revenue of which the owners have generally most to spare. They might both maintain indifferently, either productive or unproductive hands. They seem, however, to have some predilection for the latter. The expense of a great lord feeds generally more idle than industrious people The rich merchant, though with his capital he maintains industrious people only, yet by his expense, that is, by the employment of his revenue, he feeds commonly the very same sort as the great lord.}

- Wealth of Nations, Ch. V

Funny, that doesn't seem to support your claim at all, and in fact focuses on productive versus non-productive capital, rather than the class warfare you seek to engage in.

I'm more than happy to discuss, and back up, Smith and Say all day long - I have deep knowledge of both.

Did you know Adam Smith called people who live off Rent "parasites" and said that they should not exist and no one should be allowed to charge a rent?

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

He's referring to economic rent.

Economic rent - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In economics, economic rent is any payment to a factor of production in excess of the cost needed to bring that factor into production. ​

This can only be brought about by legal means (ie, crony capitalism)

 

[IDNeon]

You don't post knowledge, you post ideology. And I don't post quotes out of context, ever.

You post memes from the hate sites. Such quotes as may be contained come from George Soros and his minions.

You see, You've not read Smith, you've only read shit on ThinkProgress that you are told is a "gotcha" against the Capitalists.

Let's look at a passage;

{The labour of some of the most respectable orders in the society is, like that of menial servants, unproductive of any value, and does not fix or realize itself in any permanent subject, or vendible commodity, which endures after that labour is past, and for which an equal quantity of labour could afterwards be procured. The sovereign, for example, with all the officers both of justice and war who serve under him, the whole army and navy, are unproductive labourers. They are the servants of the public, and are maintained by a part of the annual produce of the industry of other people.Their service, how honourable, how useful, or how necessary soever, produces nothing for which an equal quantity of service can afterwards be procured. The protection, security, and defence, of the commonwealth, the effect of their labour this year, will not purchase its protection, security, and defence, for the year to come. In the same class must be ranked, some both of the gravest and most important, and some of the most frivolous professions; churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters of all kinds; players, buffoons, musicians, opera-singers, opera-dancers, etc. The labour of the meanest of these has a certain value, regulated by the very same principles which regulate that of every other sort of labour; and that of the noblest and most useful, produces nothing which could afterwards purchase or procure an equal quantity of labour. Like the declamation of the actor, the harangue of the orator, or the tune of the musician, the work of all of them perishes in the very instant of its production.}

- Wealth of Nations, Ch. III

Now, is this consistent with the Marxist claim that Labor creates value? "menial servants, unproductive of any value," Why do you think that this contrasts so radically to the meme you were trained to recite? Does Smith sound like a "Marxist" as you ignorantly claimed? Could it be that the hate site thinking for you lied and manipulated out of context quotes to create an impression which you lack the knowledge to spot and reject?

Let's examine the lie you have been spreading on behalf of the hate sites that Smith sought heavy taxation on "the rich," which you supported with an out of context quote from Say.

{They generally have some, however; and in the payment of taxes, the greatness of their number may compensate, in some measure, the smallness of their contribution. The rent of land and the profits of stock are everywhere, therefore, the principal sources from which unproductive hands derive their subsistence. These are the two sorts of revenue of which the owners have generally most to spare. They might both maintain indifferently, either productive or unproductive hands. They seem, however, to have some predilection for the latter. The expense of a great lord feeds generally more idle than industrious people The rich merchant, though with his capital he maintains industrious people only, yet by his expense, that is, by the employment of his revenue, he feeds commonly the very same sort as the great lord.}

- Wealth of Nations, Ch. V

Funny, that doesn't seem to support your claim at all, and in fact focuses on productive versus non-productive capital, rather than the class warfare you seek to engage in.

I'm more than happy to discuss, and back up, Smith and Say all day long - I have deep knowledge of both.

Did you know Adam Smith called people who live off Rent "parasites" and said that they should not exist and no one should be allowed to charge a rent?

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

He's referring to economic rent.

Economic rent - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In economics, economic rent is any payment to a factor of production in excess of the cost needed to bring that factor into production. ​

This can only be brought about by legal means (ie, crony capitalism)

What is the difference between "economic rent" and "ANY RENT"? Idiot.

I hate blustering fake intellectuals who obfuscate the truth in a mountain of similarities.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't post knowledge, you post ideology. And I don't post quotes out of context, ever.

You post memes from the hate sites. Such quotes as may be contained come from George Soros and his minions.

You see, You've not read Smith, you've only read shit on ThinkProgress that you are told is a "gotcha" against the Capitalists.

Let's look at a passage;

{The labour of some of the most respectable orders in the society is, like that of menial servants, unproductive of any value, and does not fix or realize itself in any permanent subject, or vendible commodity, which endures after that labour is past, and for which an equal quantity of labour could afterwards be procured. The sovereign, for example, with all the officers both of justice and war who serve under him, the whole army and navy, are unproductive labourers. They are the servants of the public, and are maintained by a part of the annual produce of the industry of other people.Their service, how honourable, how useful, or how necessary soever, produces nothing for which an equal quantity of service can afterwards be procured. The protection, security, and defence, of the commonwealth, the effect of their labour this year, will not purchase its protection, security, and defence, for the year to come. In the same class must be ranked, some both of the gravest and most important, and some of the most frivolous professions; churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters of all kinds; players, buffoons, musicians, opera-singers, opera-dancers, etc. The labour of the meanest of these has a certain value, regulated by the very same principles which regulate that of every other sort of labour; and that of the noblest and most useful, produces nothing which could afterwards purchase or procure an equal quantity of labour. Like the declamation of the actor, the harangue of the orator, or the tune of the musician, the work of all of them perishes in the very instant of its production.}

- Wealth of Nations, Ch. III

Now, is this consistent with the Marxist claim that Labor creates value? "menial servants, unproductive of any value," Why do you think that this contrasts so radically to the meme you were trained to recite? Does Smith sound like a "Marxist" as you ignorantly claimed? Could it be that the hate site thinking for you lied and manipulated out of context quotes to create an impression which you lack the knowledge to spot and reject?

Let's examine the lie you have been spreading on behalf of the hate sites that Smith sought heavy taxation on "the rich," which you supported with an out of context quote from Say.

{They generally have some, however; and in the payment of taxes, the greatness of their number may compensate, in some measure, the smallness of their contribution. The rent of land and the profits of stock are everywhere, therefore, the principal sources from which unproductive hands derive their subsistence. These are the two sorts of revenue of which the owners have generally most to spare. They might both maintain indifferently, either productive or unproductive hands. They seem, however, to have some predilection for the latter. The expense of a great lord feeds generally more idle than industrious people The rich merchant, though with his capital he maintains industrious people only, yet by his expense, that is, by the employment of his revenue, he feeds commonly the very same sort as the great lord.}

- Wealth of Nations, Ch. V

Funny, that doesn't seem to support your claim at all, and in fact focuses on productive versus non-productive capital, rather than the class warfare you seek to engage in.

I'm more than happy to discuss, and back up, Smith and Say all day long - I have deep knowledge of both.

Did you know Adam Smith called people who live off Rent "parasites" and said that they should not exist and no one should be allowed to charge a rent?

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

He's referring to economic rent.

Economic rent - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In economics, economic rent is any payment to a factor of production in excess of the cost needed to bring that factor into production. ​

This can only be brought about by legal means (ie, crony capitalism)

What is the difference between "economic rent" and "ANY RENT"? Idiot.

I hate blustering fake intellectuals who obfuscate the truth in a mountain of similarities.

I posted the definition of economic rent, moron.

A "fake intellectual" is someone who thinks he understands the concepts being discussed when he really doesn't. If you want to see an example of one, look in the mirror.

 

[IDNeon]

You don't post knowledge, you post ideology. And I don't post quotes out of context, ever.

You post memes from the hate sites. Such quotes as may be contained come from George Soros and his minions.

You see, You've not read Smith, you've only read shit on ThinkProgress that you are told is a "gotcha" against the Capitalists.

Let's look at a passage;

{The labour of some of the most respectable orders in the society is, like that of menial servants, unproductive of any value, and does not fix or realize itself in any permanent subject, or vendible commodity, which endures after that labour is past, and for which an equal quantity of labour could afterwards be procured. The sovereign, for example, with all the officers both of justice and war who serve under him, the whole army and navy, are unproductive labourers. They are the servants of the public, and are maintained by a part of the annual produce of the industry of other people.Their service, how honourable, how useful, or how necessary soever, produces nothing for which an equal quantity of service can afterwards be procured. The protection, security, and defence, of the commonwealth, the effect of their labour this year, will not purchase its protection, security, and defence, for the year to come. In the same class must be ranked, some both of the gravest and most important, and some of the most frivolous professions; churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters of all kinds; players, buffoons, musicians, opera-singers, opera-dancers, etc. The labour of the meanest of these has a certain value, regulated by the very same principles which regulate that of every other sort of labour; and that of the noblest and most useful, produces nothing which could afterwards purchase or procure an equal quantity of labour. Like the declamation of the actor, the harangue of the orator, or the tune of the musician, the work of all of them perishes in the very instant of its production.}

- Wealth of Nations, Ch. III

Now, is this consistent with the Marxist claim that Labor creates value? "menial servants, unproductive of any value," Why do you think that this contrasts so radically to the meme you were trained to recite? Does Smith sound like a "Marxist" as you ignorantly claimed? Could it be that the hate site thinking for you lied and manipulated out of context quotes to create an impression which you lack the knowledge to spot and reject?

Let's examine the lie you have been spreading on behalf of the hate sites that Smith sought heavy taxation on "the rich," which you supported with an out of context quote from Say.

{They generally have some, however; and in the payment of taxes, the greatness of their number may compensate, in some measure, the smallness of their contribution. The rent of land and the profits of stock are everywhere, therefore, the principal sources from which unproductive hands derive their subsistence. These are the two sorts of revenue of which the owners have generally most to spare. They might both maintain indifferently, either productive or unproductive hands. They seem, however, to have some predilection for the latter. The expense of a great lord feeds generally more idle than industrious people The rich merchant, though with his capital he maintains industrious people only, yet by his expense, that is, by the employment of his revenue, he feeds commonly the very same sort as the great lord.}

- Wealth of Nations, Ch. V

Funny, that doesn't seem to support your claim at all, and in fact focuses on productive versus non-productive capital, rather than the class warfare you seek to engage in.

I'm more than happy to discuss, and back up, Smith and Say all day long - I have deep knowledge of both.

Did you know Adam Smith called people who live off Rent "parasites" and said that they should not exist and no one should be allowed to charge a rent?

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

He's referring to economic rent.

Economic rent - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In economics, economic rent is any payment to a factor of production in excess of the cost needed to bring that factor into production. ​

This can only be brought about by legal means (ie, crony capitalism)

What is the difference between "economic rent" and "ANY RENT"? Idiot.

I hate blustering fake intellectuals who obfuscate the truth in a mountain of similarities.

I posted the definition of economic rent, moron.

A "fake intellectual" is someone who thinks he understands the concepts being discussed when he really doesn't. If you want to see an example of one, look in the mirror.

No a fake intellectual is a faggot who dodges the question.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

OH THERE IS NONE.

Meaning you have no point now get lost faggot.

 

[bripat9643]

You post memes from the hate sites. Such quotes as may be contained come from George Soros and his minions.

You see, You've not read Smith, you've only read shit on ThinkProgress that you are told is a "gotcha" against the Capitalists.

Let's look at a passage;

{The labour of some of the most respectable orders in the society is, like that of menial servants, unproductive of any value, and does not fix or realize itself in any permanent subject, or vendible commodity, which endures after that labour is past, and for which an equal quantity of labour could afterwards be procured. The sovereign, for example, with all the officers both of justice and war who serve under him, the whole army and navy, are unproductive labourers. They are the servants of the public, and are maintained by a part of the annual produce of the industry of other people.Their service, how honourable, how useful, or how necessary soever, produces nothing for which an equal quantity of service can afterwards be procured. The protection, security, and defence, of the commonwealth, the effect of their labour this year, will not purchase its protection, security, and defence, for the year to come. In the same class must be ranked, some both of the gravest and most important, and some of the most frivolous professions; churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters of all kinds; players, buffoons, musicians, opera-singers, opera-dancers, etc. The labour of the meanest of these has a certain value, regulated by the very same principles which regulate that of every other sort of labour; and that of the noblest and most useful, produces nothing which could afterwards purchase or procure an equal quantity of labour. Like the declamation of the actor, the harangue of the orator, or the tune of the musician, the work of all of them perishes in the very instant of its production.}

- Wealth of Nations, Ch. III

Now, is this consistent with the Marxist claim that Labor creates value? "menial servants, unproductive of any value," Why do you think that this contrasts so radically to the meme you were trained to recite? Does Smith sound like a "Marxist" as you ignorantly claimed? Could it be that the hate site thinking for you lied and manipulated out of context quotes to create an impression which you lack the knowledge to spot and reject?

Let's examine the lie you have been spreading on behalf of the hate sites that Smith sought heavy taxation on "the rich," which you supported with an out of context quote from Say.

{They generally have some, however; and in the payment of taxes, the greatness of their number may compensate, in some measure, the smallness of their contribution. The rent of land and the profits of stock are everywhere, therefore, the principal sources from which unproductive hands derive their subsistence. These are the two sorts of revenue of which the owners have generally most to spare. They might both maintain indifferently, either productive or unproductive hands. They seem, however, to have some predilection for the latter. The expense of a great lord feeds generally more idle than industrious people The rich merchant, though with his capital he maintains industrious people only, yet by his expense, that is, by the employment of his revenue, he feeds commonly the very same sort as the great lord.}

- Wealth of Nations, Ch. V

Funny, that doesn't seem to support your claim at all, and in fact focuses on productive versus non-productive capital, rather than the class warfare you seek to engage in.

I'm more than happy to discuss, and back up, Smith and Say all day long - I have deep knowledge of both.

Did you know Adam Smith called people who live off Rent "parasites" and said that they should not exist and no one should be allowed to charge a rent?

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

He's referring to economic rent.

Economic rent - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In economics, economic rent is any payment to a factor of production in excess of the cost needed to bring that factor into production. ​

This can only be brought about by legal means (ie, crony capitalism)

What is the difference between "economic rent" and "ANY RENT"? Idiot.

I hate blustering fake intellectuals who obfuscate the truth in a mountain of similarities.

I posted the definition of economic rent, moron.

A "fake intellectual" is someone who thinks he understands the concepts being discussed when he really doesn't. If you want to see an example of one, look in the mirror.

No a fake intellectual is a faggot who dodges the question.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

OH THERE IS NONE.

Meaning you have no point now get lost faggot.

I didn't dodge the question. I corrected your erroneous understanding of what Adam Smith meant by the word "rent."

You think you know something about economics, but your head is obviously full of nonsense you pickup at Marxist websites like DailyKOS.

You believe that speculators can control the price of a good and you haven't got a clue what the term "economic rent" means.

You've already thoroughly embarrassed yourself, so now you resent the person who pointed out the fact that you're a fool.

 

[IDNeon]

Did you know Adam Smith called people who live off Rent "parasites" and said that they should not exist and no one should be allowed to charge a rent?

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

He's referring to economic rent.

Economic rent - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In economics, economic rent is any payment to a factor of production in excess of the cost needed to bring that factor into production. ​

This can only be brought about by legal means (ie, crony capitalism)

What is the difference between "economic rent" and "ANY RENT"? Idiot.

I hate blustering fake intellectuals who obfuscate the truth in a mountain of similarities.

I posted the definition of economic rent, moron.

A "fake intellectual" is someone who thinks he understands the concepts being discussed when he really doesn't. If you want to see an example of one, look in the mirror.

No a fake intellectual is a faggot who dodges the question.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

OH THERE IS NONE.

Meaning you have no point now get lost faggot.

I didn't dodge the question. I corrected your erroneous understanding of what Adam Smith meant by the word "rent."

You think you know something about economics, but your head is obviously full of nonsense you pickup at Marxist websites like DailyKOS.

You believe that speculators can control the price of a good and you haven't got a clue what the term "economic rent" means.

You've already thoroughly embarrassed yourself, so now you resent the person who pointed out the fact that you're a fool.

No you didn't.

He's referring to economic rent.

Economic rent - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In economics, economic rent is any payment to a factor of production in excess of the cost needed to bring that factor into production.​

What's the difference between "economic rent" and "rent"?​

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Back to the bone boys:

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?

You're confusing your memes - reread what the hate site claimed, then get back to us.

That's not from a hate site, that's off the top of my head.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Not according to Smith either. BFD.

Value = what some idiot will cut a check for.

"Value is that which a trader will willingly barter the product of his own labor to obtain." - Adam Smith.

My version is more accurate. Value is meaningless in reality.

 

[bripat9643]

He's referring to economic rent.

Economic rent - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In economics, economic rent is any payment to a factor of production in excess of the cost needed to bring that factor into production. ​

This can only be brought about by legal means (ie, crony capitalism)

What is the difference between "economic rent" and "ANY RENT"? Idiot.

I hate blustering fake intellectuals who obfuscate the truth in a mountain of similarities.

I posted the definition of economic rent, moron.

A "fake intellectual" is someone who thinks he understands the concepts being discussed when he really doesn't. If you want to see an example of one, look in the mirror.

No a fake intellectual is a faggot who dodges the question.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

OH THERE IS NONE.

Meaning you have no point now get lost faggot.

I didn't dodge the question. I corrected your erroneous understanding of what Adam Smith meant by the word "rent."

You think you know something about economics, but your head is obviously full of nonsense you pickup at Marxist websites like DailyKOS.

You believe that speculators can control the price of a good and you haven't got a clue what the term "economic rent" means.

You've already thoroughly embarrassed yourself, so now you resent the person who pointed out the fact that you're a fool.

No you didn't.

He's referring to economic rent.

Economic rent - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In economics, economic rent is any payment to a factor of production in excess of the cost needed to bring that factor into production.

What's the difference between "economic rent" and "rent"?​

Economic rent is the extra income someone might earn as a result of government interference in the market place. For instance, almost every city in the country issues a specific number of licenses to run a taxicab. The thereby limit the supply of taxis and drive up the price of the service. The extra money the taxicab companies and drivers earn is economic rent.

 

[bripat9643]

Not according to Smith either. BFD.

Value = what some idiot will cut a check for.

"Value is that which a trader will willingly barter the product of his own labor to obtain." - Adam Smith.

My version is more accurate. Value is meaningless in reality.

It's subjective, but its not meaningless.

 

[bripat9643]

Back to the bone boys:

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?

You're confusing your memes - reread what the hate site claimed, then get back to us.

That's not from a hate site, that's off the top of my head.

In other words, you can't remember which hate site you read it on.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did you know Adam Smith called people who live off Rent "parasites" and said that they should not exist and no one should be allowed to charge a rent?

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

Did I know that ignorant people post memes from hate sites without any knowledge as to the meaning of the slogans they paste?

Why yes, yes I did.

Let's take a look at what Smith wrote in Chapter 11;

{In adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnishes the seed, pays the labour, and purchases and maintains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This is evidently the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself, without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more. Whatever part of the produce, or, what is the same thing, whatever part of its price, is over and above this share, he naturally endeavours to reserve to himself as the rent of his land, which is evidently the highest the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land.}

Now you'll notice that Smith speaks of a "share of the produce," "stock seed" and "production." When the landlord pounds on your door to give you a 3 day notice for failure to pay rent, do these issues come up?

Why do you think they do not?

Because Smith is speaking of actual feudal lords, and the serfs who work his land. He is not speaking of those who invested their life savings in a house to rent. This is share-cropping he is speaking of. Not capitalism, not the negotiated rent for a fixed parcel of land, but instead a PERCENTAGE OF THE YIELD demanded by the Nobility from the peasants. More akin to the taxes that Obama seeks than to the rents paid for an apartment.

Leftism is predicated in equal parts upon ignorance and dishonesty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My version is more accurate. Value is meaningless in reality.

You offer idiocy, idiocy is not "accurate."

 

[IDNeon]

Did you know Adam Smith called people who live off Rent "parasites" and said that they should not exist and no one should be allowed to charge a rent?

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

Did I know that ignorant people post memes from hate sites without any knowledge as to the meaning of the slogans they paste?

Why yes, yes I did.

Let's take a look at what Smith wrote in Chapter 11;

{In adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnishes the seed, pays the labour, and purchases and maintains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This is evidently the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself, without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more. Whatever part of the produce, or, what is the same thing, whatever part of its price, is over and above this share, he naturally endeavours to reserve to himself as the rent of his land, which is evidently the highest the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land.}

Now you'll notice that Smith speaks of a "share of the produce," "stock seed" and "production." When the landlord pounds on your door to give you a 3 day notice for failure to pay rent, do these issues come up?

Why do you think they do not?

Because Smith is speaking of actual feudal lords, and the serfs who work his land. He is not speaking of those who invested their life savings in a house to rent. This is share-cropping he is speaking of. Not capitalism, not the negotiated rent for a fixed parcel of land, but instead a PERCENTAGE OF THE YIELD demanded by the Nobility from the peasants. More akin to the taxes that Obama seeks than to the rents paid for an apartment.

Leftism is predicated in equal parts upon ignorance and dishonesty.

Look I understand you have trouble grasping basic concepts such as if Smith is critical of rent of "PRODUCE" how much more critical is he of RENT OF HOUSING?

But let me just torpedo your stupid argument against Smith being a "Marxist":

[261] The interest of the second order, that of those who live by wages, is as strictly connected with the interest of the society as that of the first. The wages of the labourer, it has already been shown, are never so high as when the demand for labour is continually rising, or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably. When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this. The order of proprietors may, perhaps, gain more by the prosperity of the society than that of labourers: but there is no order that suffers so cruelly from its decline. But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest or of understanding its connection with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and less regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on and supported by his employers, not for his, but their own particular purposes.

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

The demand for men necessarily governs the production of men, as of every other commodity. Should supply greatly exceed demand, a section of the workers sinks into beggary or starvation. The worker’s existence is thus brought under the same condition as the existence of every other commodity. The worker has become a commodity, and it is a bit of luck for him if he can find a buyer. And the demand on which the life of the worker depends, depends on the whim of the rich and the capitalists

Marx 1844 Wages of Labour

Uh oh! You mean they agreed about this fundamental premise?

 

[bripat9643]

Did you know Adam Smith called people who live off Rent "parasites" and said that they should not exist and no one should be allowed to charge a rent?

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

Did I know that ignorant people post memes from hate sites without any knowledge as to the meaning of the slogans they paste?

Why yes, yes I did.

Let's take a look at what Smith wrote in Chapter 11;

{In adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnishes the seed, pays the labour, and purchases and maintains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This is evidently the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself, without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more. Whatever part of the produce, or, what is the same thing, whatever part of its price, is over and above this share, he naturally endeavours to reserve to himself as the rent of his land, which is evidently the highest the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land.}

Now you'll notice that Smith speaks of a "share of the produce," "stock seed" and "production." When the landlord pounds on your door to give you a 3 day notice for failure to pay rent, do these issues come up?

Why do you think they do not?

Because Smith is speaking of actual feudal lords, and the serfs who work his land. He is not speaking of those who invested their life savings in a house to rent. This is share-cropping he is speaking of. Not capitalism, not the negotiated rent for a fixed parcel of land, but instead a PERCENTAGE OF THE YIELD demanded by the Nobility from the peasants. More akin to the taxes that Obama seeks than to the rents paid for an apartment.

Leftism is predicated in equal parts upon ignorance and dishonesty.

Look I understand you have trouble grasping basic concepts such as if Smith is critical of rent of "PRODUCE" how much more critical is he of RENT OF HOUSING?

But let me just torpedo your stupid argument against Smith being a "Marxist":

[261] The interest of the second order, that of those who live by wages, is as strictly connected with the interest of the society as that of the first. The wages of the labourer, it has already been shown, are never so high as when the demand for labour is continually rising, or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably. When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this. The order of proprietors may, perhaps, gain more by the prosperity of the society than that of labourers: but there is no order that suffers so cruelly from its decline. But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest or of understanding its connection with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and less regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on and supported by his employers, not for his, but their own particular purposes.

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

The demand for men necessarily governs the production of men, as of every other commodity. Should supply greatly exceed demand, a section of the workers sinks into beggary or starvation. The worker’s existence is thus brought under the same condition as the existence of every other commodity. The worker has become a commodity, and it is a bit of luck for him if he can find a buyer. And the demand on which the life of the worker depends, depends on the whim of the rich and the capitalists

Marx 1844 Wages of Labour

Uh oh! You mean they agreed about this fundamental premise?

You left out the quailifier than changes the whole meaning of Smith's statement:

When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this.

Of course, Smith didn't believe real wealth would become stationary in a market economy.

Another colossal FAIL for you.