Even The Liberal Shinhead Nazi's Applaud Muslim Hotel Burning

[bripat9643]

You have evidence someone posting in this thread belongs to the KKK?

Don't be so literal, dumbfuck. It's childish and annoying, and I've already had too many infants to deal with tonight.

I'll take that to mean that there are no KKK members participating in this thread.

However, there is one Nazi that I'm aware of.

Yeah, the OP, dumbshit. And you of course.

You're the the frikken Nazi, dumbass.

Nope. Nazis hate liberals, but they'd love your hate the Beaners and Sand ******* act.

As I pointed out earlier, in Europe liberals are people who support laizzes faire capitalism. They aren't Marxists like you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nazi's hate liberals, like Sand ******* hate liberals, like you hate liberals. One and the same.

In Europe a "liberal" is someone who believes in laizzes faire capitalism. They aren't fascists like you and the European left.

Even Adam bloody Smith didn't believe in unregulated capitalism, my little infant. Get over it. Life has rules.

Really? Can you quote him endorsing government regulation?

Like so, dumbfuck:

"Ms. Rothschild stresses that Smith was sometimes tolerant of government intervention, "especially when the object is to reduce poverty." Smith passionately argued, "When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters." He saw a tacit conspiracy on the part of employers "always and everywhere" to keep wages as low as possible."
Economist's View: "The Many Faces of Adam Smith"

Nope. He's just saying that when regulations are passed by the legislature to supposedly protect workers, that it's normally a just law. However any law designed to protect employers tends to be unjust. This isn't a comment about the efficacy of regulation but only about how legislatures operate.

Dumbass, he didn't want corporations banned for no reason, he wasn't a simpleton like you who thought all government was bad. Someone had to create the nation, roads, etc, which meant taxes which he supported. Try reading the man, instead of making shit up.

 

[bripat9643]

FYI, kiddos:

The Betrayal Of Adam Smith
From When Corporations Rule the World by David C. Korten
Kumarian Press and Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995

"Proponents of corporate libertarianism regularly pay homage to Adam Smith as their intellectual patron saint. His writing remains to this day the intellectual foundation of policies advanced in the name of market freedom that are allowing a few hundred corporations to consolidate their control over markets all over the world. See An Economic System Dangerously Out of Control.

Ironically, Smith's epic work The Wealth of Nations, which was first published in 1776, presents a radical condemnation of business monopolies sustained and protected by the state. Adam Smith's ideal was a market comprised solely of small buyers and sellers. He showed how the workings of such a market would tend toward a price that provides a fair return to land, labor, and capital, produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers, and result in an optimal outcome for society in terms of the allocation of its resources. He made clear, however, that this outcome can result only when no buyer or seller is sufficiently large to influence the market price—a point many who invoke his name prefer not to mention. Such a market implicitly assumes a significant degree of equality in the distribution of economic power—another widely neglected point.

Indeed, Smith was almost fanatical in his opposition to any kind of monopoly power, which he defined as the power of a seller to maintain a price for an indefinite time above its natural price. Indeed, he asserted that trade secrets confer a monopoly advantage and are contrary to the principles of a free market. He would surely have strongly opposed current efforts by market libertarians to strengthen corporate monopoly control of intellectual property rights through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The idea that a major corporation might have exclusive control over a lifesaving drug or device and thereby be able to charge whatever the market will bear would have been anathema to him.

Furthermore, Smith did not advocate a market system based on unrestrained greed. He was talking about small farmers and artisans trying to get the best price for their products to provide for themselves and their families. That is self-interest—but it is not greed. Greed is a high paid corporate executive firing 10,000 employees and then rewarding himself with a multimillion dollar bonus for having saved the company so much money. Greed is what the economic system being constructed by the corporate libertarians encourages and rewards.
Smith had a strong dislike for both governments and corporations. He viewed government primarily as instruments for extracting taxes to subsidize elites and for intervening in the market to protect monopoly. In his words, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." Smith made no mention of government intervention to set and enforce minimum social, health, worker safety, and environmental standards in the common interest—to protect the poor against the rich. We can imagine that given the experience of his day the possibility never occurred to him."

The theory of market economics, as contrasted to free market ideology, specifies a number of basic conditions needed for a market to set prices efficiently in the public interest. The greater the violation of these conditions, the less efficient the market system. Most basic is the condition that markets must be competitive. I recall the professor in my elementary economics course using the example of a market comprised of small wheat farmers selling to small grain millers to illustrate the idea of perfect market competition. Today, four companies—Conagra, ADM Milling, Cargill, and Pillsbury—mill nearly 60 percent of all flour produced in the United States, and two of them—Conagra and Cargill—control 50 percent of grain exports."

The Betrayal of Adam Smith

In other words, you still have no quote of Smith endorsing government regulation.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Don't be so literal, dumbfuck. It's childish and annoying, and I've already had too many infants to deal with tonight.

I'll take that to mean that there are no KKK members participating in this thread.

However, there is one Nazi that I'm aware of.

Yeah, the OP, dumbshit. And you of course.

You're the the frikken Nazi, dumbass.

Nope. Nazis hate liberals, but they'd love your hate the Beaners and Sand ******* act.

As I pointed out earlier, in Europe liberals are people who support laizzes faire capitalism. They aren't Marxists like you.

The capitalism you support doesn't exist. The capitalism I support, does.

 

[bripat9643]

In Europe a "liberal" is someone who believes in laizzes faire capitalism. They aren't fascists like you and the European left.

Even Adam bloody Smith didn't believe in unregulated capitalism, my little infant. Get over it. Life has rules.

Really? Can you quote him endorsing government regulation?

Like so, dumbfuck:

"Ms. Rothschild stresses that Smith was sometimes tolerant of government intervention, "especially when the object is to reduce poverty." Smith passionately argued, "When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters." He saw a tacit conspiracy on the part of employers "always and everywhere" to keep wages as low as possible."
Economist's View: "The Many Faces of Adam Smith"

Nope. He's just saying that when regulations are passed by the legislature to supposedly protect workers, that it's normally a just law. However any law designed to protect employers tends to be unjust. This isn't a comment about the efficacy of regulation but only about how legislatures operate.

Dumbass, he didn't want corporations banned for no reason, he wasn't a simpleton like you who thought all government was bad. Someone had to create the nation, roads, etc, which meant taxes which he supported. Try reading the man, instead of making shit up.

You're the one making shit up. Where did he say any of what you claim? Smith thought all government intervention in the economy was bad.

 

[bripat9643]

I'll take that to mean that there are no KKK members participating in this thread.

However, there is one Nazi that I'm aware of.

Yeah, the OP, dumbshit. And you of course.

You're the the frikken Nazi, dumbass.

Nope. Nazis hate liberals, but they'd love your hate the Beaners and Sand ******* act.

As I pointed out earlier, in Europe liberals are people who support laizzes faire capitalism. They aren't Marxists like you.

The capitalism you support doesn't exist. The capitalism I support, does.

You support fascism, not capitalism.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

FYI, kiddos:

The Betrayal Of Adam Smith
From When Corporations Rule the World by David C. Korten
Kumarian Press and Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995

"Proponents of corporate libertarianism regularly pay homage to Adam Smith as their intellectual patron saint. His writing remains to this day the intellectual foundation of policies advanced in the name of market freedom that are allowing a few hundred corporations to consolidate their control over markets all over the world. See An Economic System Dangerously Out of Control.

Ironically, Smith's epic work The Wealth of Nations, which was first published in 1776, presents a radical condemnation of business monopolies sustained and protected by the state. Adam Smith's ideal was a market comprised solely of small buyers and sellers. He showed how the workings of such a market would tend toward a price that provides a fair return to land, labor, and capital, produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers, and result in an optimal outcome for society in terms of the allocation of its resources. He made clear, however, that this outcome can result only when no buyer or seller is sufficiently large to influence the market price—a point many who invoke his name prefer not to mention. Such a market implicitly assumes a significant degree of equality in the distribution of economic power—another widely neglected point.

Indeed, Smith was almost fanatical in his opposition to any kind of monopoly power, which he defined as the power of a seller to maintain a price for an indefinite time above its natural price. Indeed, he asserted that trade secrets confer a monopoly advantage and are contrary to the principles of a free market. He would surely have strongly opposed current efforts by market libertarians to strengthen corporate monopoly control of intellectual property rights through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The idea that a major corporation might have exclusive control over a lifesaving drug or device and thereby be able to charge whatever the market will bear would have been anathema to him.

Furthermore, Smith did not advocate a market system based on unrestrained greed. He was talking about small farmers and artisans trying to get the best price for their products to provide for themselves and their families. That is self-interest—but it is not greed. Greed is a high paid corporate executive firing 10,000 employees and then rewarding himself with a multimillion dollar bonus for having saved the company so much money. Greed is what the economic system being constructed by the corporate libertarians encourages and rewards.
Smith had a strong dislike for both governments and corporations. He viewed government primarily as instruments for extracting taxes to subsidize elites and for intervening in the market to protect monopoly. In his words, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." Smith made no mention of government intervention to set and enforce minimum social, health, worker safety, and environmental standards in the common interest—to protect the poor against the rich. We can imagine that given the experience of his day the possibility never occurred to him."

The theory of market economics, as contrasted to free market ideology, specifies a number of basic conditions needed for a market to set prices efficiently in the public interest. The greater the violation of these conditions, the less efficient the market system. Most basic is the condition that markets must be competitive. I recall the professor in my elementary economics course using the example of a market comprised of small wheat farmers selling to small grain millers to illustrate the idea of perfect market competition. Today, four companies—Conagra, ADM Milling, Cargill, and Pillsbury—mill nearly 60 percent of all flour produced in the United States, and two of them—Conagra and Cargill—control 50 percent of grain exports."

The Betrayal of Adam Smith

In other words, you still have no quote of Smith endorsing government regulation.

It's obvious, and unnecessary, if you knew the man's work, which you do not:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. (287-288)"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Even Adam bloody Smith didn't believe in unregulated capitalism, my little infant. Get over it. Life has rules.

Really? Can you quote him endorsing government regulation?

Like so, dumbfuck:

"Ms. Rothschild stresses that Smith was sometimes tolerant of government intervention, "especially when the object is to reduce poverty." Smith passionately argued, "When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters." He saw a tacit conspiracy on the part of employers "always and everywhere" to keep wages as low as possible."
Economist's View: "The Many Faces of Adam Smith"

Nope. He's just saying that when regulations are passed by the legislature to supposedly protect workers, that it's normally a just law. However any law designed to protect employers tends to be unjust. This isn't a comment about the efficacy of regulation but only about how legislatures operate.

Dumbass, he didn't want corporations banned for no reason, he wasn't a simpleton like you who thought all government was bad. Someone had to create the nation, roads, etc, which meant taxes which he supported. Try reading the man, instead of making shit up.

You're the one making shit up. Where did he say any of what you claim? Smith thought all government intervention in the economy was bad.

Intervention is not, in his mind, the same as Regulation, and I am making nothing anything up. Learn fucking Adam Smith.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Like so, dumbass: Adam Smith's Support for Money and Banking Regulation: A Case of Inconsistency on JSTOR

 

[bripat9643]

FYI, kiddos:

The Betrayal Of Adam Smith
From When Corporations Rule the World by David C. Korten
Kumarian Press and Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995

"Proponents of corporate libertarianism regularly pay homage to Adam Smith as their intellectual patron saint. His writing remains to this day the intellectual foundation of policies advanced in the name of market freedom that are allowing a few hundred corporations to consolidate their control over markets all over the world. See An Economic System Dangerously Out of Control.

Ironically, Smith's epic work The Wealth of Nations, which was first published in 1776, presents a radical condemnation of business monopolies sustained and protected by the state. Adam Smith's ideal was a market comprised solely of small buyers and sellers. He showed how the workings of such a market would tend toward a price that provides a fair return to land, labor, and capital, produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers, and result in an optimal outcome for society in terms of the allocation of its resources. He made clear, however, that this outcome can result only when no buyer or seller is sufficiently large to influence the market price—a point many who invoke his name prefer not to mention. Such a market implicitly assumes a significant degree of equality in the distribution of economic power—another widely neglected point.

Indeed, Smith was almost fanatical in his opposition to any kind of monopoly power, which he defined as the power of a seller to maintain a price for an indefinite time above its natural price. Indeed, he asserted that trade secrets confer a monopoly advantage and are contrary to the principles of a free market. He would surely have strongly opposed current efforts by market libertarians to strengthen corporate monopoly control of intellectual property rights through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The idea that a major corporation might have exclusive control over a lifesaving drug or device and thereby be able to charge whatever the market will bear would have been anathema to him.

Furthermore, Smith did not advocate a market system based on unrestrained greed. He was talking about small farmers and artisans trying to get the best price for their products to provide for themselves and their families. That is self-interest—but it is not greed. Greed is a high paid corporate executive firing 10,000 employees and then rewarding himself with a multimillion dollar bonus for having saved the company so much money. Greed is what the economic system being constructed by the corporate libertarians encourages and rewards.
Smith had a strong dislike for both governments and corporations. He viewed government primarily as instruments for extracting taxes to subsidize elites and for intervening in the market to protect monopoly. In his words, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." Smith made no mention of government intervention to set and enforce minimum social, health, worker safety, and environmental standards in the common interest—to protect the poor against the rich. We can imagine that given the experience of his day the possibility never occurred to him."

The theory of market economics, as contrasted to free market ideology, specifies a number of basic conditions needed for a market to set prices efficiently in the public interest. The greater the violation of these conditions, the less efficient the market system. Most basic is the condition that markets must be competitive. I recall the professor in my elementary economics course using the example of a market comprised of small wheat farmers selling to small grain millers to illustrate the idea of perfect market competition. Today, four companies—Conagra, ADM Milling, Cargill, and Pillsbury—mill nearly 60 percent of all flour produced in the United States, and two of them—Conagra and Cargill—control 50 percent of grain exports."

The Betrayal of Adam Smith

In other words, you still have no quote of Smith endorsing government regulation.

It's obvious, and unnecessary, if you knew the man's work, which you do not:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. (287-288)"

That is anything but an endorsement of government regulation.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And with this, I'm done with this:

Economist's View: Adam Smith and the Role of Government

 

[PaintMyHouse]

FYI, kiddos:

The Betrayal Of Adam Smith
From When Corporations Rule the World by David C. Korten
Kumarian Press and Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995

"Proponents of corporate libertarianism regularly pay homage to Adam Smith as their intellectual patron saint. His writing remains to this day the intellectual foundation of policies advanced in the name of market freedom that are allowing a few hundred corporations to consolidate their control over markets all over the world. See An Economic System Dangerously Out of Control.

Ironically, Smith's epic work The Wealth of Nations, which was first published in 1776, presents a radical condemnation of business monopolies sustained and protected by the state. Adam Smith's ideal was a market comprised solely of small buyers and sellers. He showed how the workings of such a market would tend toward a price that provides a fair return to land, labor, and capital, produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers, and result in an optimal outcome for society in terms of the allocation of its resources. He made clear, however, that this outcome can result only when no buyer or seller is sufficiently large to influence the market price—a point many who invoke his name prefer not to mention. Such a market implicitly assumes a significant degree of equality in the distribution of economic power—another widely neglected point.

Indeed, Smith was almost fanatical in his opposition to any kind of monopoly power, which he defined as the power of a seller to maintain a price for an indefinite time above its natural price. Indeed, he asserted that trade secrets confer a monopoly advantage and are contrary to the principles of a free market. He would surely have strongly opposed current efforts by market libertarians to strengthen corporate monopoly control of intellectual property rights through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The idea that a major corporation might have exclusive control over a lifesaving drug or device and thereby be able to charge whatever the market will bear would have been anathema to him.

Furthermore, Smith did not advocate a market system based on unrestrained greed. He was talking about small farmers and artisans trying to get the best price for their products to provide for themselves and their families. That is self-interest—but it is not greed. Greed is a high paid corporate executive firing 10,000 employees and then rewarding himself with a multimillion dollar bonus for having saved the company so much money. Greed is what the economic system being constructed by the corporate libertarians encourages and rewards.
Smith had a strong dislike for both governments and corporations. He viewed government primarily as instruments for extracting taxes to subsidize elites and for intervening in the market to protect monopoly. In his words, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." Smith made no mention of government intervention to set and enforce minimum social, health, worker safety, and environmental standards in the common interest—to protect the poor against the rich. We can imagine that given the experience of his day the possibility never occurred to him."

The theory of market economics, as contrasted to free market ideology, specifies a number of basic conditions needed for a market to set prices efficiently in the public interest. The greater the violation of these conditions, the less efficient the market system. Most basic is the condition that markets must be competitive. I recall the professor in my elementary economics course using the example of a market comprised of small wheat farmers selling to small grain millers to illustrate the idea of perfect market competition. Today, four companies—Conagra, ADM Milling, Cargill, and Pillsbury—mill nearly 60 percent of all flour produced in the United States, and two of them—Conagra and Cargill—control 50 percent of grain exports."

The Betrayal of Adam Smith

In other words, you still have no quote of Smith endorsing government regulation.

It's obvious, and unnecessary, if you knew the man's work, which you do not:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. (287-288)"

That is anything but an endorsement of government regulation.

No, it's a warning (not a ringing endorsement) to be careful, but it's not what you think either, or he would have said that.

 

[bripat9643]

Like so, dumbass: Adam Smith's Support for Money and Banking Regulation: A Case of Inconsistency on JSTOR

Well, you finally found something. Yes, he did endorse bank regulation, but all that shows is that Smith was human. He wasn't always consistent and he made mistakes.

 

[bripat9643]

And with this, I'm done with this:

Economist's View: Adam Smith and the Role of Government

No one cares what some pinko government economist has to say about Adam Smith.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The role of government

Smith is critical of government and officialdom, but is no champion of laissez-faire. He believes that the market economy he has described can function and deliver its benefits only when its rules are observed – when property is secure and contracts are honoured. The maintenance of justice and the rule of law is therefore vital.

So is defence. If our property can be stolen by a foreign power, we are no better off than if our own neighbours steal it. And Smith sees a role for education and public works too, insofar as these collective projects make it easier for trade and markets to operate.

Where tax has to be raised for these purposes, it should be raised in proportion to people’s ability to pay, it should be at set rates rather than arbitrary, it should be easy to pay, and it should aim to have minimal side effects. Governments should avoid taxing capital, which is essential to the nation’s productivity. Since most of their spending is for current consumption, they should also avoid building up large debts, with draw capital away from future production.

The Wealth of Nations «

About Us
"The Adam Smith Institute is one of the world’s leading think tanks. Independent, non-profit and non-partisan, it works to promote libertarian and free market ideas through research, publishing, media commentary, and educational programmes. The Institute is today at the forefront of making the case for free markets and a free society in the United Kingdom."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Like so, dumbass: Adam Smith's Support for Money and Banking Regulation: A Case of Inconsistency on JSTOR

Well, you finally found something. Yes, he did endorse bank regulation, but all that shows is that Smith was human. He wasn't always consistent and he made mistakes.

That was no mistake, dumbfuck. You are the mistake.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And with this, I'm done with this:

Economist's View: Adam Smith and the Role of Government

No one cares what some pinko government economist has to say about Adam Smith.

Your response is a fallacy, so I won't bother.

 

[bripat9643]

And with this, I'm done with this:

Economist's View: Adam Smith and the Role of Government

No one cares what some pinko government economist has to say about Adam Smith.

Your response is a fallacy, so I won't bother.

You just proved you don't know what a fallacy is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And with this, I'm done with this:

Economist's View: Adam Smith and the Role of Government

No one cares what some pinko government economist has to say about Adam Smith.

Your response is a fallacy, so I won't bother.

You just proved you don't know what a fallacy is.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.
Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

Just shut the fuck up, dumbfuck: Econ Journal Watch · Authors

 

[JimBowie1958]

All six of them?

Well then there are the 60 FBI informants.....