Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Ombrageux wrote:Adam Smith, incidentally, was not a fundamentalist free marketeer.
Even Adam Smith recognized the destructive potential of concentrated economic power.
It scares me that the Obama administration hasn't dismantled the security infrastructure
grassroots wrote:Um. Yes, he did.
http://www.pcdf.org/corprule/betrayal.htm
The rich ... divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal proportions among all its inhabitants.
-The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part IV Chapter 1
The moment you have your prophets is the moment you have left the world of rational debate to that of theology.
Sir Isaac Newton FRS (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727]) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian who is perceived and considered by a substantial number of scholars and the general public as one of the most influential men in history. His 1687 publication of the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (usually called the Principia) is considered to be among the most influential books in the history of science, laying the groundwork for most of classical mechanics. .......
.......Newton remains influential to scientists, as demonstrated by a 2005 survey of scientists and the general public in Britain's Royal Society asking who had the greater effect on the history of science, Newton or Albert Einstein. Newton was deemed to have made the greater overall contribution to science, although the two men were closer when it came to contributions to humanity.
Newton was also highly religious, though an unorthodox Christian, writing more on Biblical hermeneutics than the natural science he is remembered for today.
Ombrageux wrote:The moment you have your prophets is the moment you have left the world of rational debate to that of theology
Adam Smith, incidentally, was not a fundamentalist free marketeer.
Yes he was. With very few exceptions, he advocated unrestricted markets and low taxes.
It scares me that the Obama administration hasn't dismantled the security infrastructure and hasn't denounced torture: these are signs of fascism.No they are not. Fascists gassed to death and tortured because they were racist and conquerors. Not to save the lives of fellow citizens and soldiers.
Um. No, he didn't. I've read this interpretation of Adam Smith's quotes on corporations before. It's a complete, if not deliberate, misinterpretation. Instead of taking it on faith that your 'progressive' (socialist) sources' claims are accurate, how about you investigate the claim for yourself and point out specifically where he, in your words, "recognized the destructive potential of concentrated economic power".If any thing, he did the exact opposite, and argued wealthy individuals shouldn't be feared or envied:
Quote:
The rich ... divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal proportions among all its inhabitants.
-The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part IV Chapter 1
No they are not. Fascists gassed to death and tortured because they were racist and conquerors. Not to save the lives of fellow citizens and soldiers.
America therefore does not belong in the same category as you pegged us.
Next time when you judge someone or thing.. be fair and weigh the facts and motives.
You think our leaders gas and torture because they are trying to protect American people? Hah, they would be the first fascists in history to actually go through with a promise. 
Nonetheless, RPA, he DID mention, notice, and warn against the potential of concentrated economic power.
Your quote doesn't back up your statement.
grassroots, it is a socialist source. It's a pro-regulation/wealth-redistribution/social-services website that totally misinterprets Smith's position.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is im-possible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and jus-tice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.
The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X
It completely backs it up. It shows how ridiculous that website's claim is.
It actually doesn't.
Quote:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is im-possible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and jus-tice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.
The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X
I haven't read the book yet, but I plan on it soon. Regardless, the one thing you can take from this quote is that Adam Smith did recognize the danger of concentrated economic power.
He had denounced monopolies as ineffective as well, which is a form of concentrated economic power... that he is recognizing the danger of.
He hopes, or believes, that the rich will be benevolent enough with their 'improvements' for the average person to have what they need (which is a claim that has probably been disproved, given starvation and malnourishment in the third world, and the long history of labor struggles in industrialized nations), and yet he also recognizes the danger of concentrated economic power.
they have been fought against because people were not receiving the necessities of life, and because the rich were not dividing 'with the poor the produce of all their improvements' to a great enough extent.
That's absolute nonsense. He makes no mention of economic power in that quote. You're misrepresenting the quote. It only says that people of the same trade can collude to lobby for regulations to favor their industry. That's not concentration of economic power, that's special interest lobbying that he's warning against.
2) He did not think that the rich share their wealth through benevolence, he claimed that through their own self-interest, they end up sharing their wealth. He was very adamant that it was SELF-INTEREST, rather than benevolence, that leads businessmen to improve their society.
That's only according to your biased interpretation of the fact.
In saying that the law should do nothing to 'facilitate such assemblies,' and in even noticing that there was a possibility that there could be 'some contrivance to raise prices,' Smith is recognizing the danger of concentrated economic power. That's the end of it.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is im-possible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and jus-tice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.
He's talking about trade groups coordinating their political influence into bring about regulations that favor their industry.
@Tainari88 Responding to your comment in another[…]
- By Unthinking Majority
1. Do you think that, as it currently exists th[…]
- By Rich
What are you upset about with @SpecialOlympian […]