WikiLeaks' Assange - TPP Not Only Trade, 83% Is Fascists Controlling Our Daily Lives

[Tehon]

[

It is the production, distribution, trade, and consumption of goods and services.

Thank you, that's at least better than what that dipshit Iceweasel offered. But my question was, what is its purpose. Why do we have economists, what are we striving for?

I already answered that, to find the most economical ways to produce the goods and services that people desire.

Adam Smith argued that rational self interest and competition lead to the increase in the "wealth of the nation".

The annual*1 labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life*2 which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations.
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Introduction and Plan of the Work

And?

Again, you seek to trade your needs for the goods of others. Since no rational person will trade goods for needs, you are forced to use coercion to get what you seek. Hence the value proposition of the left is that party A will provide value to party B in exchange for the State not engaging in violence against party A.

The reason this fails to create an economic production system should be obvious.

Again, you seek to trade your needs for the goods of others.

Where did I say anything like this? You building strawmen?

 

[Tehon]

What are we, lowland gorillas. We are talking about an economy, the social construct whereby people's wants and needs can be provided for in a given society. The offshoring of jobs has shorted our economic system. The economy is no longer working for a growing portion of our people. And while the capitalists have increased their private profits they have shifted the burden of meeting the needs of those left behind onto the public. As a supporter of Trump you must obviously understand this.

Who taught you that? Wants and needs provided by society? What are you, 10 years old? Get off your needy ass and make your way like everyone with a backbone did before you.

You see government as a mommy but it's run by people who have their own intrests at heart. It can never be your mommy. The economy "isn't working for many" because too many are just like you and gave liberals power to corrupt the economy. The rich have been getting richer thanks to the sweetheart marriage between big government and big corporations. They use you to grab increasing amounts of power and control.

The economy can only improve from the bottom up, not the top down. We can't legislate a good economy into existence. Being a liberals you think more failed policies are the right answer because for you it's a political religion. We all just need to believe.

The economy "isn't working for many" because too many are just like you and gave liberals power to corrupt the economy. The rich have been getting richer thanks to the sweetheart marriage between big government and big corporations. They use you to grab increasing amounts of power and control.

What does that have to do with you voting libtard?

It wasn't liberals who corrupted the economy, it was neoliberals. Reagan was a big neoliberal.

 

[Tehon]

[

It is the production, distribution, trade, and consumption of goods and services.

Thank you, that's at least better than what that dipshit Iceweasel offered. But my question was, what is its purpose. Why do we have economists, what are we striving for?

I already answered that, to find the most economical ways to produce the goods and services that people desire.

Adam Smith argued that rational self interest and competition lead to the increase in the "wealth of the nation".

The annual*1 labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life*2 which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations.
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Introduction and Plan of the Work

And?

Again, you seek to trade your needs for the goods of others. Since no rational person will trade goods for needs, you are forced to use coercion to get what you seek. Hence the value proposition of the left is that party A will provide value to party B in exchange for the State not engaging in violence against party A.

The reason this fails to create an economic production system should be obvious.

I already answered that, to find the most economical ways to produce the goods and services that people desire.

Okay well it's becoming apparent that you can't admit it so I will just say it. Economics is a social science that strives to most efficiently allocate resources used for the purpose of meeting the needs of society. It's not that difficult people.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again, you seek to trade your needs for the goods of others.

Where did I say anything like this? You building strawmen?

WikiLeaks' Assange - TPP Not Only Trade, 83% Is Fascists Controlling Our Daily Lives

That IS you, is it not?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

It wasn't liberals who corrupted the economy, it was neoliberals. Reagan was a big neoliberal.

By "corrupted" you mean moved away from the malaise of stagflation left by Carter?

 

[Iceweasel]

What are we, lowland gorillas. We are talking about an economy, the social construct whereby people's wants and needs can be provided for in a given society. The offshoring of jobs has shorted our economic system. The economy is no longer working for a growing portion of our people. And while the capitalists have increased their private profits they have shifted the burden of meeting the needs of those left behind onto the public. As a supporter of Trump you must obviously understand this.

Who taught you that? Wants and needs provided by society? What are you, 10 years old? Get off your needy ass and make your way like everyone with a backbone did before you.

You see government as a mommy but it's run by people who have their own intrests at heart. It can never be your mommy. The economy "isn't working for many" because too many are just like you and gave liberals power to corrupt the economy. The rich have been getting richer thanks to the sweetheart marriage between big government and big corporations. They use you to grab increasing amounts of power and control.

The economy can only improve from the bottom up, not the top down. We can't legislate a good economy into existence. Being a liberals you think more failed policies are the right answer because for you it's a political religion. We all just need to believe.

The economy "isn't working for many" because too many are just like you and gave liberals power to corrupt the economy. The rich have been getting richer thanks to the sweetheart marriage between big government and big corporations. They use you to grab increasing amounts of power and control.

What does that have to do with you voting libtard?

It wasn't liberals who corrupted the economy, it was neoliberals. Reagan was a big neoliberal.

So why didn't oldyliberals fix it?

 

[Iceweasel]

[

It is the production, distribution, trade, and consumption of goods and services.

Thank you, that's at least better than what that dipshit Iceweasel offered. But my question was, what is its purpose. Why do we have economists, what are we striving for?

I already answered that, to find the most economical ways to produce the goods and services that people desire.

Adam Smith argued that rational self interest and competition lead to the increase in the "wealth of the nation".

The annual*1 labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life*2 which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations.
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Introduction and Plan of the Work

And?

Again, you seek to trade your needs for the goods of others. Since no rational person will trade goods for needs, you are forced to use coercion to get what you seek. Hence the value proposition of the left is that party A will provide value to party B in exchange for the State not engaging in violence against party A.

The reason this fails to create an economic production system should be obvious.

I already answered that, to find the most economical ways to produce the goods and services that people desire.

Okay well it's becoming apparent that you can't admit it so I will just say it. Economics is a social science that strives to most efficiently allocate resources used for the purpose of meeting the needs of society. It's not that difficult people.

Whaaaat? Allocate resources? You think government is Santa Claus. Feeding Santa's big fat ass is a drain on the economy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Okay well it's becoming apparent that you can't admit it so I will just say it. Economics is a social science that strives to most efficiently allocate resources used for the purpose of meeting the needs of society. It's not that difficult people.

Your ignorance does not alter reality.

Economics on the micro level is the science of finding the most economical way to produce and distribute goods and services. On the macro level to it is the understanding of the patterns and impulses that affect the business cycle and affect the propensities of consumers. In case you've never had macro-economics (LOL, you wouldn't be a leftist if you had) these are the propensity to spend, propensity to save, and propensity to produce.

Need, in the way that you use it, is not part of any equation. When one sees a "need" in the market, it is an opportunity to produce that will spur demand.

The most basic concept in economics is this;

{
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”} - Adam Smith

 

[Tehon]

Again, you seek to trade your needs for the goods of others.

Where did I say anything like this? You building strawmen?

WikiLeaks' Assange - TPP Not Only Trade, 83% Is Fascists Controlling Our Daily Lives

That IS you, is it not?

It was Adam Smith.

The annual*1 labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life*2which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations.

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

It was Adam Smith.

The annual*1 labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life*2which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations.

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

Uh, no.

Try again.

 

[Tehon]

[

It was Adam Smith.

The annual*1 labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life*2which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations.

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

Uh, no.

Try again.

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

Better?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

Better?

Hardly.

The "necessities of life" is not a ephamism for "meeting your needs."

Smith pointed out that trade is the basis of our obtaining the things we need, he did not demand that we need care for those who will not care for themselves, quite the opposite.

You have cut and pasted a blurb from one of the Soros hate sites that is supposed to be a "gotcha." The problem is that you have utterly no grasp of classical economics, ergo you don't comprehend what Smith wrote.

 

[Tehon]

[

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

Better?

Hardly.

The "necessities of life" is not a ephamism for "meeting your needs."

Smith pointed out that trade is the basis of our obtaining the things we need, he did not demand that we need care for those who will not care for themselves, quite the opposite.

You have cut and pasted a blurb from one of the Soros hate sites that is supposed to be a "gotcha." The problem is that you have utterly no grasp of classical economics, ergo you don't comprehend what Smith wrote.

Smith pointed out that trade is the basis of our obtaining the things we need

I have not stated anything contrary. Why do you insist on misrepresenting my position as stated.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Smith pointed out that trade is the basis of our obtaining the things we need

I have not stated anything contrary. Why do you insist on misrepresenting my position as stated.

Why do you pretend that this is not your post?

WikiLeaks' Assange - TPP Not Only Trade, 83% Is Fascists Controlling Our Daily Lives

You present the typical socialist view point. I understand that the hate sites try and twist Smith to be supportive of this, but that only appeals to the ignorant.

Smith was a free market advocate and laid out the reasons that an unfettered market leads to the accumulation of wealth. Smith advocated outsourcing and offshoring.

{“If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.”} - WoN

He was not the Socialist that George Soros wants him to have been.

 

[Tehon]

[

Smith pointed out that trade is the basis of our obtaining the things we need

I have not stated anything contrary. Why do you insist on misrepresenting my position as stated.

Why do you pretend that this is not your post?

WikiLeaks' Assange - TPP Not Only Trade, 83% Is Fascists Controlling Our Daily Lives

You present the typical socialist view point. I understand that the hate sites try and twist Smith to be supportive of this, but that only appeals to the ignorant.

Smith was a free market advocate and laid out the reasons that an unfettered market leads to the accumulation of wealth. Smith advocated outsourcing and offshoring.

{“If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.”} - WoN

He was not the Socialist that George Soros wants him to have been.

This is what I said.

We are talking about an economy, the social construct whereby people's wants and needs can be provided for in a given society.

And this is from Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", not a socialist website. Lol

The annual*1 labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life*2which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations.

I am not saying anything different than is he.

Here is more from the socialist Adam Smith. Lol

To explain*11 in what has consisted the revenue of the great body of the people, or what has been the nature*12 of those funds, which, in different ages and nations, have supplied their annual consumption, is the object of*13 these Four first Books. The Fifth and last Book treats of the revenue of the sovereign, or commonwealth. In this book I have endeavoured to show; first, what are the necessary expences of the sovereign, or commonwealth; which of those expences ought to be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society; and which of them, by that of some particular part only, or of some particular members of it:*14 secondly, what are the different methods in which the whole society may be made to contribute towards defraying the expences incumbent on the whole society, and what are the principal advantages and inconveniencies of each of those methods: and, thirdly and lastly, what are the reasons and causes which have induced almost all modern governments to mortgage some part of this revenue, or to contract debts, and what have been the effects of those debts upon the real wealth, the annual produce of the land and labour of the society.*15

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is what I said.

We are talking about an economy, the social construct whereby people's wants and needs can be provided for in a given society.

And this is from Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", not a socialist website. Lol

The annual*1 labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life*2which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations.

I am not saying anything different than is he.

I understand why you run from you words, but such effort is in vein,.

And while the capitalists have increased their private profits they have shifted the burden of meeting the needs of those left behind onto the public.

Again, you take the Marxist stance that "capitalists" have some duty in "meeting the needs" of people.

What you quote of Smith makes no such absurd claims.

Here is more from the socialist Adam Smith. Lol

To explain*11 in what has consisted the revenue of the great body of the people, or what has been the nature*12 of those funds, which, in different ages and nations, have supplied their annual consumption, is the object of*13 these Four first Books. The Fifth and last Book treats of the revenue of the sovereign, or commonwealth. In this book I have endeavoured to show; first, what are the necessary expences of the sovereign, or commonwealth; which of those expences ought to be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society; and which of them, by that of some particular part only, or of some particular members of it:*14 secondly, what are the different methods in which the whole society may be made to contribute towards defraying the expences incumbent on the whole society, and what are the principal advantages and inconveniencies of each of those methods: and, thirdly and lastly, what are the reasons and causes which have induced almost all modern governments to mortgage some part of this revenue, or to contract debts, and what have been the effects of those debts upon the real wealth, the annual produce of the land and labour of the society.*15

And?

Smith examines the various economies in the 5th book. What point do you think this makes for you?

 

[Tehon]

[

Smith pointed out that trade is the basis of our obtaining the things we need

I have not stated anything contrary. Why do you insist on misrepresenting my position as stated.

Why do you pretend that this is not your post?

WikiLeaks' Assange - TPP Not Only Trade, 83% Is Fascists Controlling Our Daily Lives

You present the typical socialist view point. I understand that the hate sites try and twist Smith to be supportive of this, but that only appeals to the ignorant.

Smith was a free market advocate and laid out the reasons that an unfettered market leads to the accumulation of wealth. Smith advocated outsourcing and offshoring.

{“If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.”} - WoN

He was not the Socialist that George Soros wants him to have been.

Smith was a free market advocate and laid out the reasons that an unfettered market leads to the accumulation of wealth.

Yes, he said that people are self interested in the accumulation of wealth and that self interest promotes favorable outcomes for society at large.

But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

Smith advocated outsourcing and offshoring.

The caveat being that we sell them something in return so that our industries will not be diminished. Our trade deficit is presently over 40 billion and our industries along with society have been diminished.

What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not thereby be diminished, no more than that of the above-mentioned artificers; but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage. It is certainly not employed to the greatest advantage when it is thus directed towards an object which it can buy cheaper than it can make. The value of its annual produce is certainly more or less diminished when it is thus turned away from producing commodities evidently of more value than the commodity which it is directed to produce. According to the supposition, that commodity could be purchased from foreign countries cheaper than it can be made at home. It could, therefore, have been purchased with a part only of the commodities, or, what is the same thing, with a part only of the price of the commodities, which the industry employed by an equal capital would have produced at home, had it been left to follow its natural course. The industry of the country, therefore, is thus turned away from a more to a less advantageous employment, and the exchangeable value of its annual produce, instead of being increased, according to the intention of the lawgiver, must necessarily be diminished by every such regulation.
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter 2 | Library of Economics and Liberty

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Smith pointed out that trade is the basis of our obtaining the things we need

I have not stated anything contrary. Why do you insist on misrepresenting my position as stated.

Why do you pretend that this is not your post?

WikiLeaks' Assange - TPP Not Only Trade, 83% Is Fascists Controlling Our Daily Lives

You present the typical socialist view point. I understand that the hate sites try and twist Smith to be supportive of this, but that only appeals to the ignorant.

Smith was a free market advocate and laid out the reasons that an unfettered market leads to the accumulation of wealth. Smith advocated outsourcing and offshoring.

{“If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.”} - WoN

He was not the Socialist that George Soros wants him to have been.

Smith was a free market advocate and laid out the reasons that an unfettered market leads to the accumulation of wealth.

Yes, he said that people are self interested in the accumulation of wealth and that self interest promotes favorable outcomes for society at large.

But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

Smith advocated outsourcing and offshoring.

The caveat being that we sell them something in return so that our industries will not be diminished. Our trade deficit is presently over 40 billion and our industries along with society have been diminished.

What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not thereby be diminished, no more than that of the above-mentioned artificers; but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage. It is certainly not employed to the greatest advantage when it is thus directed towards an object which it can buy cheaper than it can make. The value of its annual produce is certainly more or less diminished when it is thus turned away from producing commodities evidently of more value than the commodity which it is directed to produce. According to the supposition, that commodity could be purchased from foreign countries cheaper than it can be made at home. It could, therefore, have been purchased with a part only of the commodities, or, what is the same thing, with a part only of the price of the commodities, which the industry employed by an equal capital would have produced at home, had it been left to follow its natural course. The industry of the country, therefore, is thus turned away from a more to a less advantageous employment, and the exchangeable value of its annual produce, instead of being increased, according to the intention of the lawgiver, must necessarily be diminished by every such regulation.
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter 2 | Library of Economics and Liberty

It's good that you are looking into economic sources,, but you do grasp that your source supports my argument, and not your own, right?

 

[Tehon]

[

Smith pointed out that trade is the basis of our obtaining the things we need

I have not stated anything contrary. Why do you insist on misrepresenting my position as stated.

Why do you pretend that this is not your post?

WikiLeaks' Assange - TPP Not Only Trade, 83% Is Fascists Controlling Our Daily Lives

You present the typical socialist view point. I understand that the hate sites try and twist Smith to be supportive of this, but that only appeals to the ignorant.

Smith was a free market advocate and laid out the reasons that an unfettered market leads to the accumulation of wealth. Smith advocated outsourcing and offshoring.

{“If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.”} - WoN

He was not the Socialist that George Soros wants him to have been.

Smith was a free market advocate and laid out the reasons that an unfettered market leads to the accumulation of wealth.

Yes, he said that people are self interested in the accumulation of wealth and that self interest promotes favorable outcomes for society at large.

But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

Smith advocated outsourcing and offshoring.

The caveat being that we sell them something in return so that our industries will not be diminished. Our trade deficit is presently over 40 billion and our industries along with society have been diminished.

What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not thereby be diminished, no more than that of the above-mentioned artificers; but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage. It is certainly not employed to the greatest advantage when it is thus directed towards an object which it can buy cheaper than it can make. The value of its annual produce is certainly more or less diminished when it is thus turned away from producing commodities evidently of more value than the commodity which it is directed to produce. According to the supposition, that commodity could be purchased from foreign countries cheaper than it can be made at home. It could, therefore, have been purchased with a part only of the commodities, or, what is the same thing, with a part only of the price of the commodities, which the industry employed by an equal capital would have produced at home, had it been left to follow its natural course. The industry of the country, therefore, is thus turned away from a more to a less advantageous employment, and the exchangeable value of its annual produce, instead of being increased, according to the intention of the lawgiver, must necessarily be diminished by every such regulation.
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter 2 | Library of Economics and Liberty

It's good that you are looking into economic sources,, but you do grasp that your source supports my argument, and not your own, right?

That capitalists don't have a duty to meet the needs of society?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Smith pointed out that trade is the basis of our obtaining the things we need

I have not stated anything contrary. Why do you insist on misrepresenting my position as stated.

Why do you pretend that this is not your post?

WikiLeaks' Assange - TPP Not Only Trade, 83% Is Fascists Controlling Our Daily Lives

You present the typical socialist view point. I understand that the hate sites try and twist Smith to be supportive of this, but that only appeals to the ignorant.

Smith was a free market advocate and laid out the reasons that an unfettered market leads to the accumulation of wealth. Smith advocated outsourcing and offshoring.

{“If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.”} - WoN

He was not the Socialist that George Soros wants him to have been.

Smith was a free market advocate and laid out the reasons that an unfettered market leads to the accumulation of wealth.

Yes, he said that people are self interested in the accumulation of wealth and that self interest promotes favorable outcomes for society at large.

But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

Smith advocated outsourcing and offshoring.

The caveat being that we sell them something in return so that our industries will not be diminished. Our trade deficit is presently over 40 billion and our industries along with society have been diminished.

What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not thereby be diminished, no more than that of the above-mentioned artificers; but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage. It is certainly not employed to the greatest advantage when it is thus directed towards an object which it can buy cheaper than it can make. The value of its annual produce is certainly more or less diminished when it is thus turned away from producing commodities evidently of more value than the commodity which it is directed to produce. According to the supposition, that commodity could be purchased from foreign countries cheaper than it can be made at home. It could, therefore, have been purchased with a part only of the commodities, or, what is the same thing, with a part only of the price of the commodities, which the industry employed by an equal capital would have produced at home, had it been left to follow its natural course. The industry of the country, therefore, is thus turned away from a more to a less advantageous employment, and the exchangeable value of its annual produce, instead of being increased, according to the intention of the lawgiver, must necessarily be diminished by every such regulation.
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter 2 | Library of Economics and Liberty

Here is a little further information regarding outsourcing and offshoring.

In 1776 Adam Smith used the concept of absolute advantage to argue for international specialization and trade. His point was that nations would be better off if each specialized in the production of those products in which it had an absolute advantage and was therefore the most efficient producer:

"It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. The taylor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them of the shoemaker. The shoemaker does not attempt to make his own clothes, but employs a taylor. The farmer attempts to make neither the one nor the other, but employs those different artificers. . . .

What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage." - Smith WoN

We see here the vital concept of absolute advantage, Smith correctly points out that specialization is critical to economic production.

In economics, there is a principle known as the opportunity-cost ratio. This was first explained by classical economist David Ricardo. Ricardo expanded on Smith by explaining that advantage need not be absolute, but simply relative. In Ricardo's famous treatise he explains that for every acre of wheat a farmer grows, he must give up a certain number of cows. The opportunity cost of growing wheat is that one cannot raise cattle.

Economist Paul Gieco explains it like this;

{A CPA and a House Painter

Suppose that Madison, a certified public accountant (CPA), is a swifter painter than Mason, the professional painter she is thinking of hiring. Also assume that Madison can earn $50 per hour as an accountant but would have to pay Mason $15 per hour. And suppose that Madison would need 30 hours to paint her house but Mason would need 40 hours.

Should Madison take time from her accounting to paint her own house, or should she hire the painter? Madison’s opportunity cost of painting her house is $1,500 (= 30 hours of sacrificed CPA time × $50 per CPA hour). The cost of hiring Mason is only $600 (= 40 hours of painting × $15 per hour of painting). Although Madison is better at both accounting and painting, she will get her house painted at lower cost by specializing in accounting and using some of her earnings from accounting to hire a house painter.

Similarly, Mason can reduce his cost of obtaining accounting services by specializing in painting and using some of his income to hire Madison to prepare his income tax forms. Suppose Mason would need 10 hours to prepare his tax return, while Madison could handle the task in 2 hours. Mason would sacrifice $150 of income (= 10 hours of painting time × $15 per hour) to do something he could hire Madison to do for $100 (= 2 hours of CPA time × $50 per CPA hour). By specializing in painting and hiring Madison to prepare his tax return, Mason lowers the cost of getting his tax return prepared.

We will see that what is true for our CPA and house painter is also true for nations. Specializing on the basis of comparative advantage enables nations to reduce the cost of obtaining the goods and services they desire.}

Opportunity-Cost is plotted on a curve to show the trade off in any venture. For a nation to maximize the production, the proper mix of products should be pursued. It makes no sense for Mexico to grow rice, the climate and lack of wetlands make the proposition absurd. India on the other hand is well suited to rice cultivation. Maximization of resources ensures that at some level, international trade WILL occur.

Enough for now.