What Did Adam Smith Really Say (The Wealth of Nations, 1776)?

declaredemer

It occurred to me that we have a problem; we do not know what documents, or people, really say.  We read beyond the plain and clear meaning to either handicap our analysis of it (reading it out of context) or expanding meaning more than generously.

 

Instead of a topic, however, on what does the Constitution really say, we turn our attention to Adam Smith's magnum opus The Wealth of Nations (1776)  It was Adam Smith who laid the ground work for the principles of capitalism and today's modern market economy.  First and foremost, let's know who our author was:  a philosopher.  He was a professor, actually, at Glasgow University.  He was also a tutor for the children of nobility.  

 

The "invisible hand" is mentioned precisely once in The Wealth of Nations.  Although it endures as a manifesto of the right, the ideas in the book are not as "conservative" as one would think.  As you can see below, Smith was a nuanced thinker and did not endorse an unfettered free market.

 

TAXES

Adam Smith advocated a system of taxation on luxuries but not on necessities:

"Taxes upon luxuries have no tendency to raise the price of any other commodities except that of the commodities taxed.  Taxes upon necessaries, by raising the wages of labour, necessarily tend to raise the price of all manufactures, and consequently to diminish . . . their sale and consumption.  Taxes upon luxuries are finally paid by the consumers of commodities taxed without any retribution."

 

INVISIBLE HAND

Adam Smith referred to people pursuing their own self-interest for the benefit of society:

"An invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.  Nor is it worse always the worse for 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." 

 

CORPORATE EXECUTIVES

Adam Smith did not have a lot of confidence in the management of shareholders' money:

"Being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. . . . Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such company." 

 

WORKERS' RIGHTS

Adam Smith favored, gasp, "regulation" to secure workers' rights:

"When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."

Adam Smith even continues on corporate monopolies and anti-unionization:

"The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.  We have laws against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it." 

Adam Smith also understood how wages can be set artificially low, through laws, and through corporate collusion:

"Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour."

 

 

Some of Smith's greatest contributions, which I would be remiss if I neglected to mention, were on value and labor ("the real price . . . is the toil and trouble of acquiring it") and the division of labor.  Obama, despite calls to nationalize banks by the "left" and "right," has sought to reduce health care costs for everyone.  And for this, he is decried a "socialist."  If you read Smith's own words above, who sounds more like a socialist?

 

Wolfenpride

he was implying that he wanted to be the little girl.

Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer


It occurred to me that we have a problem; we do not know what documents, or people, really say.  We read beyond the plain and clear meaning to either handicap our analysis of it (reading it out of context) or expanding meaning more than generously.
 
Instead of a topic, however, on what does the Constitution really say, we turn our attention to Adam Smith's magnum opus The Wealth of Nations (1776)  It was Adam Smith who laid the ground work for the principles of capitalism and today's modern market economy.  First and foremost, let's know who our author was:  a philosopher.  He was a professor, actually, at Glasgow University.  He was also a tutor for the children of nobility.  
 
The "invisible hand" is mentioned precisely once in The Wealth of Nations.  Although it endures as a manifesto of the right, the ideas in the book are not as "conservative" as one would think.  As you can see below, Smith was a nuanced thinker and did not endorse an unfettered free market.
 
TAXES
Adam Smith advocated a system of taxation on luxuries but not on necessities:
"Taxes upon luxuries have no tendency to raise the price of any other commodities except that of the commodities taxed.  Taxes upon necessaries, by raising the wages of labour, necessarily tend to raise the price of all manufactures, and consequently to diminish . . . their sale and consumption.  Taxes upon luxuries are finally paid by the consumers of commodities taxed without any retribution."
 
INVISIBLE HAND
Adam Smith referred to people pursuing their own self-interest for the benefit of society:
"An invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.  Nor is it worse always the worse for 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." 
 
CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
Adam Smith did not have a lot of confidence in the management of shareholders' money:
"Being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. . . . Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such company." 
 
WORKERS' RIGHTS
Adam Smith favored, gasp, "regulation" to secure workers' rights:
"When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
Adam Smith even continues on corporate monopolies and anti-unionization:
"The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.  We have laws against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it." 
Adam Smith also understood how wages can be set artificially low, through laws, and through corporate collusion:
"Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour."
 
 
Some of Smith's greatest contributions, which I would be remiss if I neglected to mention, were on value and labor ("the real price . . . is the toil and trouble of acquiring it") and the division of labor.  Obama, despite calls to nationalize banks by the "left" and "right," has sought to reduce health care costs for everyone.  And for this, he is decried a "socialist."  If you read Smith's own words above, who sounds more like a socialist?
 

 

he isn't "seeking to reduce health care costs" for anyone. What he is doing, or trying to do, is the same thing that hasn't reduced costs anywhere, at any time in history. What he is seeking to do is equally unsustainable as our current system, if not moreso, at the cost of freedom. He is using outdated failed theories that are not slowing medical inflation anywhere on earth.

there is only ONE way to reduced costs. The market.

declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer


It occurred to me that we have a problem; we do not know what documents, or people, really say.  We read beyond the plain and clear meaning to either handicap our analysis of it (reading it out of context) or expanding meaning more than generously.
 
Instead of a topic, however, on what does the Constitution really say, we turn our attention to Adam Smith's magnum opus The Wealth of Nations (1776)  It was Adam Smith who laid the ground work for the principles of capitalism and today's modern market economy.  First and foremost, let's know who our author was:  a philosopher.  He was a professor, actually, at Glasgow University.  He was also a tutor for the children of nobility.  
 
The "invisible hand" is mentioned precisely once in The Wealth of Nations.  Although it endures as a manifesto of the right, the ideas in the book are not as "conservative" as one would think.  As you can see below, Smith was a nuanced thinker and did not endorse an unfettered free market.
 
TAXES
Adam Smith advocated a system of taxation on luxuries but not on necessities:
"Taxes upon luxuries have no tendency to raise the price of any other commodities except that of the commodities taxed.  Taxes upon necessaries, by raising the wages of labour, necessarily tend to raise the price of all manufactures, and consequently to diminish . . . their sale and consumption.  Taxes upon luxuries are finally paid by the consumers of commodities taxed without any retribution."
 
INVISIBLE HAND
Adam Smith referred to people pursuing their own self-interest for the benefit of society:
"An invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.  Nor is it worse always the worse for 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." 
 
CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
Adam Smith did not have a lot of confidence in the management of shareholders' money:
"Being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. . . . Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such company." 
 
WORKERS' RIGHTS
Adam Smith favored, gasp, "regulation" to secure workers' rights:
"When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
Adam Smith even continues on corporate monopolies and anti-unionization:
"The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.  We have laws against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it." 
Adam Smith also understood how wages can be set artificially low, through laws, and through corporate collusion:
"Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour."
 
 
Some of Smith's greatest contributions, which I would be remiss if I neglected to mention, were on value and labor ("the real price . . . is the toil and trouble of acquiring it") and the division of labor.  Obama, despite calls to nationalize banks by the "left" and "right," has sought to reduce health care costs for everyone.  And for this, he is decried a "socialist."  If you read Smith's own words above, who sounds more like a socialist?
 

 

he isn't "seeking to reduce health care costs" for anyone. What he is doing, or trying to do, is the same thing that hasn't reduced costs anywhere, at any time in history. What he is seeking to do is equally unsustainable as our current system, if not moreso, at the cost of freedom. He is using outdated failed theories that are not slowing medical inflation anywhere on earth.

there is only ONE way to reduced costs. The market.

• Explain
• Support
• Show

how Obama's plan will

1. not reduce costs;
2. cost freedom; and
3. how the market will reduce costs.

All I see are statement of conclusions, which should be your LAST paragraph.  I need the FIRST and MIDDLE paragraphs.

Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer


It occurred to me that we have a problem; we do not know what documents, or people, really say.  We read beyond the plain and clear meaning to either handicap our analysis of it (reading it out of context) or expanding meaning more than generously.
 
Instead of a topic, however, on what does the Constitution really say, we turn our attention to Adam Smith's magnum opus The Wealth of Nations (1776)  It was Adam Smith who laid the ground work for the principles of capitalism and today's modern market economy.  First and foremost, let's know who our author was:  a philosopher.  He was a professor, actually, at Glasgow University.  He was also a tutor for the children of nobility.  
 
The "invisible hand" is mentioned precisely once in The Wealth of Nations.  Although it endures as a manifesto of the right, the ideas in the book are not as "conservative" as one would think.  As you can see below, Smith was a nuanced thinker and did not endorse an unfettered free market.
 
TAXES
Adam Smith advocated a system of taxation on luxuries but not on necessities:
"Taxes upon luxuries have no tendency to raise the price of any other commodities except that of the commodities taxed.  Taxes upon necessaries, by raising the wages of labour, necessarily tend to raise the price of all manufactures, and consequently to diminish . . . their sale and consumption.  Taxes upon luxuries are finally paid by the consumers of commodities taxed without any retribution."
 
INVISIBLE HAND
Adam Smith referred to people pursuing their own self-interest for the benefit of society:
"An invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.  Nor is it worse always the worse for 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." 
 
CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
Adam Smith did not have a lot of confidence in the management of shareholders' money:
"Being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. . . . Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such company." 
 
WORKERS' RIGHTS
Adam Smith favored, gasp, "regulation" to secure workers' rights:
"When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
Adam Smith even continues on corporate monopolies and anti-unionization:
"The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.  We have laws against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it." 
Adam Smith also understood how wages can be set artificially low, through laws, and through corporate collusion:
"Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour."
 
 
Some of Smith's greatest contributions, which I would be remiss if I neglected to mention, were on value and labor ("the real price . . . is the toil and trouble of acquiring it") and the division of labor.  Obama, despite calls to nationalize banks by the "left" and "right," has sought to reduce health care costs for everyone.  And for this, he is decried a "socialist."  If you read Smith's own words above, who sounds more like a socialist?
 

 

he isn't "seeking to reduce health care costs" for anyone. What he is doing, or trying to do, is the same thing that hasn't reduced costs anywhere, at any time in history. What he is seeking to do is equally unsustainable as our current system, if not moreso, at the cost of freedom. He is using outdated failed theories that are not slowing medical inflation anywhere on earth.

there is only ONE way to reduced costs. The market.

• Explain
• Support
• Show

how Obama's plan will

1. not reduce costs;
2. cost freedom; and
3. how the market will reduce costs.

All I see are statement of conclusions, which should be your LAST paragraph.  I need the FIRST and MIDDLE paragraphs.

 

Sorry I and others have done so in many other posts, and since I no longer believe you are posting sincerely at all, you are not worth wasting my time any more. We have provided you with charts, graphs, studies, articles, and more. When you start showing some sincerity in your posts, and I no longer believe you are a character designed to show how silly the left is, MAYBE I'll actually engage you again. Until that time, when you preach your statist collectivist nonsense, I'll simply say "no."

declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer


It occurred to me that we have a problem; we do not know what documents, or people, really say.  We read beyond the plain and clear meaning to either handicap our analysis of it (reading it out of context) or expanding meaning more than generously.
 
Instead of a topic, however, on what does the Constitution really say, we turn our attention to Adam Smith's magnum opus The Wealth of Nations (1776)  It was Adam Smith who laid the ground work for the principles of capitalism and today's modern market economy.  First and foremost, let's know who our author was:  a philosopher.  He was a professor, actually, at Glasgow University.  He was also a tutor for the children of nobility.  
 
The "invisible hand" is mentioned precisely once in The Wealth of Nations.  Although it endures as a manifesto of the right, the ideas in the book are not as "conservative" as one would think.  As you can see below, Smith was a nuanced thinker and did not endorse an unfettered free market.
 
TAXES
Adam Smith advocated a system of taxation on luxuries but not on necessities:
"Taxes upon luxuries have no tendency to raise the price of any other commodities except that of the commodities taxed.  Taxes upon necessaries, by raising the wages of labour, necessarily tend to raise the price of all manufactures, and consequently to diminish . . . their sale and consumption.  Taxes upon luxuries are finally paid by the consumers of commodities taxed without any retribution."
 
INVISIBLE HAND
Adam Smith referred to people pursuing their own self-interest for the benefit of society:
"An invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.  Nor is it worse always the worse for 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." 
 
CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
Adam Smith did not have a lot of confidence in the management of shareholders' money:
"Being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. . . . Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such company." 
 
WORKERS' RIGHTS
Adam Smith favored, gasp, "regulation" to secure workers' rights:
"When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
Adam Smith even continues on corporate monopolies and anti-unionization:
"The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.  We have laws against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it." 
Adam Smith also understood how wages can be set artificially low, through laws, and through corporate collusion:
"Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour."
 
 
Some of Smith's greatest contributions, which I would be remiss if I neglected to mention, were on value and labor ("the real price . . . is the toil and trouble of acquiring it") and the division of labor.  Obama, despite calls to nationalize banks by the "left" and "right," has sought to reduce health care costs for everyone.  And for this, he is decried a "socialist."  If you read Smith's own words above, who sounds more like a socialist?
 

 

he isn't "seeking to reduce health care costs" for anyone. What he is doing, or trying to do, is the same thing that hasn't reduced costs anywhere, at any time in history. What he is seeking to do is equally unsustainable as our current system, if not moreso, at the cost of freedom. He is using outdated failed theories that are not slowing medical inflation anywhere on earth.

there is only ONE way to reduced costs. The market.

• Explain
• Support
• Show

how Obama's plan will

1. not reduce costs;
2. cost freedom; and
3. how the market will reduce costs.

All I see are statement of conclusions, which should be your LAST paragraph.  I need the FIRST and MIDDLE paragraphs.

 

Sorry I and others have done so in many other posts, and since I no longer believe you are posting sincerely at all, you are not worth wasting my time any more. We have provided you with charts, graphs, studies, articles, and more. When you start showing some sincerity in your posts, and I no longer believe you are a character designed to show how silly the left is, MAYBE I'll actually engage you again. Until that time, when you preach your statist collectivist nonsense, I'll simply say "no."

 

You cannot

• explain,
• support,
• or show

a single theory or premise of yours.  It shows an intellectual dishonesty, especially when you impugn my intellectual integrity after your excuses for not defending your own theories. 

 

It you "have done so in may other posts," then it should be EASY.  

 

Let's see it! 

 

 

EDIT:  Sir, I am beginning to suspect it is YOU who is not posting sincerely. Indeed, as someone had said, "projecting."

Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer


It occurred to me that we have a problem; we do not know what documents, or people, really say.  We read beyond the plain and clear meaning to either handicap our analysis of it (reading it out of context) or expanding meaning more than generously.
 
Instead of a topic, however, on what does the Constitution really say, we turn our attention to Adam Smith's magnum opus The Wealth of Nations (1776)  It was Adam Smith who laid the ground work for the principles of capitalism and today's modern market economy.  First and foremost, let's know who our author was:  a philosopher.  He was a professor, actually, at Glasgow University.  He was also a tutor for the children of nobility.  
 
The "invisible hand" is mentioned precisely once in The Wealth of Nations.  Although it endures as a manifesto of the right, the ideas in the book are not as "conservative" as one would think.  As you can see below, Smith was a nuanced thinker and did not endorse an unfettered free market.
 
TAXES
Adam Smith advocated a system of taxation on luxuries but not on necessities:
"Taxes upon luxuries have no tendency to raise the price of any other commodities except that of the commodities taxed.  Taxes upon necessaries, by raising the wages of labour, necessarily tend to raise the price of all manufactures, and consequently to diminish . . . their sale and consumption.  Taxes upon luxuries are finally paid by the consumers of commodities taxed without any retribution."
 
INVISIBLE HAND
Adam Smith referred to people pursuing their own self-interest for the benefit of society:
"An invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.  Nor is it worse always the worse for 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." 
 
CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
Adam Smith did not have a lot of confidence in the management of shareholders' money:
"Being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. . . . Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such company." 
 
WORKERS' RIGHTS
Adam Smith favored, gasp, "regulation" to secure workers' rights:
"When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
Adam Smith even continues on corporate monopolies and anti-unionization:
"The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.  We have laws against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it." 
Adam Smith also understood how wages can be set artificially low, through laws, and through corporate collusion:
"Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour."
 
 
Some of Smith's greatest contributions, which I would be remiss if I neglected to mention, were on value and labor ("the real price . . . is the toil and trouble of acquiring it") and the division of labor.  Obama, despite calls to nationalize banks by the "left" and "right," has sought to reduce health care costs for everyone.  And for this, he is decried a "socialist."  If you read Smith's own words above, who sounds more like a socialist?
 

 

he isn't "seeking to reduce health care costs" for anyone. What he is doing, or trying to do, is the same thing that hasn't reduced costs anywhere, at any time in history. What he is seeking to do is equally unsustainable as our current system, if not moreso, at the cost of freedom. He is using outdated failed theories that are not slowing medical inflation anywhere on earth.

there is only ONE way to reduced costs. The market.

• Explain
• Support
• Show

how Obama's plan will

1. not reduce costs;
2. cost freedom; and
3. how the market will reduce costs.

All I see are statement of conclusions, which should be your LAST paragraph.  I need the FIRST and MIDDLE paragraphs.

 

Sorry I and others have done so in many other posts, and since I no longer believe you are posting sincerely at all, you are not worth wasting my time any more. We have provided you with charts, graphs, studies, articles, and more. When you start showing some sincerity in your posts, and I no longer believe you are a character designed to show how silly the left is, MAYBE I'll actually engage you again. Until that time, when you preach your statist collectivist nonsense, I'll simply say "no."

 

You cannot

• explain,
• support,
• or show

a single theory or premise of yours.  It shows an intellectual dishonesty, especially when you impugn my intellectual integrity after your excuses for not defending your own theories. 

 

It you "have done so in may other posts," then it should be EASY.  

 

Let's see it! 

 

 

EDIT:  Sir, I am beginning to suspect it is YOU who is not posting sincerely. Indeed, as someone had said, "projecting."

 

Sorry you, judging from your posting behavior, are not worth it, as I said from your posting history after you get PWNed you will vanish again. Sorry you have blown your own cover. You will have to create another character and start anew. You probably already are a few other people here anyway, Time to switch.

This character is no longer worth playing with. You have succeeded in showing the ridiculous self contradictory nature of the"new" left. Time to start a new one.

Again I am not the one contradicting myself in every post. Sorry dude, you've been made.

Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer


It occurred to me that we have a problem; we do not know what documents, or people, really say.  We read beyond the plain and clear meaning to either handicap our analysis of it (reading it out of context) or expanding meaning more than generously.
 
Instead of a topic, however, on what does the Constitution really say, we turn our attention to Adam Smith's magnum opus The Wealth of Nations (1776)  It was Adam Smith who laid the ground work for the principles of capitalism and today's modern market economy.  First and foremost, let's know who our author was:  a philosopher.  He was a professor, actually, at Glasgow University.  He was also a tutor for the children of nobility.  
 
The "invisible hand" is mentioned precisely once in The Wealth of Nations.  Although it endures as a manifesto of the right, the ideas in the book are not as "conservative" as one would think.  As you can see below, Smith was a nuanced thinker and did not endorse an unfettered free market.
 
TAXES
Adam Smith advocated a system of taxation on luxuries but not on necessities:
"Taxes upon luxuries have no tendency to raise the price of any other commodities except that of the commodities taxed.  Taxes upon necessaries, by raising the wages of labour, necessarily tend to raise the price of all manufactures, and consequently to diminish . . . their sale and consumption.  Taxes upon luxuries are finally paid by the consumers of commodities taxed without any retribution."
 
INVISIBLE HAND
Adam Smith referred to people pursuing their own self-interest for the benefit of society:
"An invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.  Nor is it worse always the worse for 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." 
 
CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
Adam Smith did not have a lot of confidence in the management of shareholders' money:
"Being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. . . . Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such company." 
 
WORKERS' RIGHTS
Adam Smith favored, gasp, "regulation" to secure workers' rights:
"When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
Adam Smith even continues on corporate monopolies and anti-unionization:
"The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.  We have laws against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it." 
Adam Smith also understood how wages can be set artificially low, through laws, and through corporate collusion:
"Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour."
 
 
Some of Smith's greatest contributions, which I would be remiss if I neglected to mention, were on value and labor ("the real price . . . is the toil and trouble of acquiring it") and the division of labor.  Obama, despite calls to nationalize banks by the "left" and "right," has sought to reduce health care costs for everyone.  And for this, he is decried a "socialist."  If you read Smith's own words above, who sounds more like a socialist?
 

 

he isn't "seeking to reduce health care costs" for anyone. What he is doing, or trying to do, is the same thing that hasn't reduced costs anywhere, at any time in history. What he is seeking to do is equally unsustainable as our current system, if not moreso, at the cost of freedom. He is using outdated failed theories that are not slowing medical inflation anywhere on earth.

there is only ONE way to reduced costs. The market.

• Explain
• Support
• Show

how Obama's plan will

1. not reduce costs;
2. cost freedom; and
3. how the market will reduce costs.

All I see are statement of conclusions, which should be your LAST paragraph.  I need the FIRST and MIDDLE paragraphs.

 

Sorry I and others have done so in many other posts, and since I no longer believe you are posting sincerely at all, you are not worth wasting my time any more. We have provided you with charts, graphs, studies, articles, and more. When you start showing some sincerity in your posts, and I no longer believe you are a character designed to show how silly the left is, MAYBE I'll actually engage you again. Until that time, when you preach your statist collectivist nonsense, I'll simply say "no."

 

You cannot

• explain,
• support,
• or show

a single theory or premise of yours.  It shows an intellectual dishonesty, especially when you impugn my intellectual integrity after your excuses for not defending your own theories. 

 

It you "have done so in may other posts," then it should be EASY.  

 

Let's see it! 

 

 

EDIT:  Sir, I am beginning to suspect it is YOU who is not posting sincerely. Indeed, as someone had said, "projecting."

 

Can you Prove this New Deal will help anyone? I keep asking you to do this But you havent.

The system in place is far from perfect. But its still better than the one you want.. Unless you would like to start proveing it.

declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage


 
Sorry you, judging from your posting behavior, are not worth it, as I said from your posting history after you get PWNed you will vanish again. Sorry you have blown your own cover. You will have to create another character and start anew. You probably already are a few other people here anyway, Time to switch.
This character is no longer worth playing with. You have succeeded in showing the ridiculous self contradictory nature of the"new" left. Time to start a new one.
Again I am not the one contradicting myself in every post. Sorry dude, you've been made.

 

Ha, ha ha!  You are so crazy this ACTUALLY MADE ME LAUGH OUT LOUD!  LOL!

 

 

"You probably already are a few other people here anyway."  If you believe nothing else at all, I am only ME.  I do not post under ANY other name other than this one.  If you believe absolutely, positively nothing else . . . .  You are totally paranoid. 

 

 

Heh, he he.  That was great,though. =D

declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer


It occurred to me that we have a problem; we do not know what documents, or people, really say.  We read beyond the plain and clear meaning to either handicap our analysis of it (reading it out of context) or expanding meaning more than generously.
 
Instead of a topic, however, on what does the Constitution really say, we turn our attention to Adam Smith's magnum opus The Wealth of Nations (1776)  It was Adam Smith who laid the ground work for the principles of capitalism and today's modern market economy.  First and foremost, let's know who our author was:  a philosopher.  He was a professor, actually, at Glasgow University.  He was also a tutor for the children of nobility.  
 
The "invisible hand" is mentioned precisely once in The Wealth of Nations.  Although it endures as a manifesto of the right, the ideas in the book are not as "conservative" as one would think.  As you can see below, Smith was a nuanced thinker and did not endorse an unfettered free market.
 
TAXES
Adam Smith advocated a system of taxation on luxuries but not on necessities:
"Taxes upon luxuries have no tendency to raise the price of any other commodities except that of the commodities taxed.  Taxes upon necessaries, by raising the wages of labour, necessarily tend to raise the price of all manufactures, and consequently to diminish . . . their sale and consumption.  Taxes upon luxuries are finally paid by the consumers of commodities taxed without any retribution."
 
INVISIBLE HAND
Adam Smith referred to people pursuing their own self-interest for the benefit of society:
"An invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.  Nor is it worse always the worse for 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." 
 
CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
Adam Smith did not have a lot of confidence in the management of shareholders' money:
"Being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. . . . Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such company." 
 
WORKERS' RIGHTS
Adam Smith favored, gasp, "regulation" to secure workers' rights:
"When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
Adam Smith even continues on corporate monopolies and anti-unionization:
"The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.  We have laws against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it." 
Adam Smith also understood how wages can be set artificially low, through laws, and through corporate collusion:
"Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour."
 
 
Some of Smith's greatest contributions, which I would be remiss if I neglected to mention, were on value and labor ("the real price . . . is the toil and trouble of acquiring it") and the division of labor.  Obama, despite calls to nationalize banks by the "left" and "right," has sought to reduce health care costs for everyone.  And for this, he is decried a "socialist."  If you read Smith's own words above, who sounds more like a socialist?
 

 

he isn't "seeking to reduce health care costs" for anyone. What he is doing, or trying to do, is the same thing that hasn't reduced costs anywhere, at any time in history. What he is seeking to do is equally unsustainable as our current system, if not moreso, at the cost of freedom. He is using outdated failed theories that are not slowing medical inflation anywhere on earth.

there is only ONE way to reduced costs. The market.

• Explain
• Support
• Show

how Obama's plan will

1. not reduce costs;
2. cost freedom; and
3. how the market will reduce costs.

All I see are statement of conclusions, which should be your LAST paragraph.  I need the FIRST and MIDDLE paragraphs.

 

Sorry I and others have done so in many other posts, and since I no longer believe you are posting sincerely at all, you are not worth wasting my time any more. We have provided you with charts, graphs, studies, articles, and more. When you start showing some sincerity in your posts, and I no longer believe you are a character designed to show how silly the left is, MAYBE I'll actually engage you again. Until that time, when you preach your statist collectivist nonsense, I'll simply say "no."

 

You cannot

• explain,
• support,
• or show

a single theory or premise of yours.  It shows an intellectual dishonesty, especially when you impugn my intellectual integrity after your excuses for not defending your own theories. 

 

It you "have done so in may other posts," then it should be EASY.  

 

Let's see it! 

 

 

EDIT:  Sir, I am beginning to suspect it is YOU who is not posting sincerely. Indeed, as someone had said, "projecting."

 

Can you Prove this New Deal will help anyone? I keep asking you to do this But you havent.

The system in place is far from perfect. But its still better than the one you want.. Unless you would like to start proveing it.

 

Yes.  The post New Deal policies not only rescued us from the Great Depression, but also sustained the greatest and most prosperous middle-class in United States history.  And this included, since suspended, wage controls, free tuition (something I have loooong advocated for all grade levels), varied insurance programs, unemployment relief, investor protections (SEC, and I suggest an SEC with a BITE, not just a roar), outlaw on union-bashing, unions, and so forth.

 

It were these programs, policies, and institutions that created and sustained the middle-class.

Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage


 
Sorry you, judging from your posting behavior, are not worth it, as I said from your posting history after you get PWNed you will vanish again. Sorry you have blown your own cover. You will have to create another character and start anew. You probably already are a few other people here anyway, Time to switch.
This character is no longer worth playing with. You have succeeded in showing the ridiculous self contradictory nature of the"new" left. Time to start a new one.
Again I am not the one contradicting myself in every post. Sorry dude, you've been made.

 

Ha, ha ha!  You are so crazy this ACTUALLY MADE ME LAUGH OUT LOUD!  LOL!

 

 

"You probably already are a few other people here anyway."  If you believe nothing else at all, I am only ME.  I do not post under ANY other name other than this one.  If you believe absolutely, positively nothing else . . . .  You are totally paranoid. 

 

 

Heh, he he.  That was great,though. =D

 

Nope, not the least bit paranoid, Don't flatter yourself. Just because I have caught you at your game doesn't mean I actually care all that much.

Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer


It occurred to me that we have a problem; we do not know what documents, or people, really say.  We read beyond the plain and clear meaning to either handicap our analysis of it (reading it out of context) or expanding meaning more than generously.
 
Instead of a topic, however, on what does the Constitution really say, we turn our attention to Adam Smith's magnum opus The Wealth of Nations (1776)  It was Adam Smith who laid the ground work for the principles of capitalism and today's modern market economy.  First and foremost, let's know who our author was:  a philosopher.  He was a professor, actually, at Glasgow University.  He was also a tutor for the children of nobility.  
 
The "invisible hand" is mentioned precisely once in The Wealth of Nations.  Although it endures as a manifesto of the right, the ideas in the book are not as "conservative" as one would think.  As you can see below, Smith was a nuanced thinker and did not endorse an unfettered free market.
 
TAXES
Adam Smith advocated a system of taxation on luxuries but not on necessities:
"Taxes upon luxuries have no tendency to raise the price of any other commodities except that of the commodities taxed.  Taxes upon necessaries, by raising the wages of labour, necessarily tend to raise the price of all manufactures, and consequently to diminish . . . their sale and consumption.  Taxes upon luxuries are finally paid by the consumers of commodities taxed without any retribution."
 
INVISIBLE HAND
Adam Smith referred to people pursuing their own self-interest for the benefit of society:
"An invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.  Nor is it worse always the worse for 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." 
 
CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
Adam Smith did not have a lot of confidence in the management of shareholders' money:
"Being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. . . . Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such company." 
 
WORKERS' RIGHTS
Adam Smith favored, gasp, "regulation" to secure workers' rights:
"When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
Adam Smith even continues on corporate monopolies and anti-unionization:
"The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.  We have laws against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it." 
Adam Smith also understood how wages can be set artificially low, through laws, and through corporate collusion:
"Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour."
 
 
Some of Smith's greatest contributions, which I would be remiss if I neglected to mention, were on value and labor ("the real price . . . is the toil and trouble of acquiring it") and the division of labor.  Obama, despite calls to nationalize banks by the "left" and "right," has sought to reduce health care costs for everyone.  And for this, he is decried a "socialist."  If you read Smith's own words above, who sounds more like a socialist?
 

 

he isn't "seeking to reduce health care costs" for anyone. What he is doing, or trying to do, is the same thing that hasn't reduced costs anywhere, at any time in history. What he is seeking to do is equally unsustainable as our current system, if not moreso, at the cost of freedom. He is using outdated failed theories that are not slowing medical inflation anywhere on earth.

there is only ONE way to reduced costs. The market.

• Explain
• Support
• Show

how Obama's plan will

1. not reduce costs;
2. cost freedom; and
3. how the market will reduce costs.

All I see are statement of conclusions, which should be your LAST paragraph.  I need the FIRST and MIDDLE paragraphs.

 

Sorry I and others have done so in many other posts, and since I no longer believe you are posting sincerely at all, you are not worth wasting my time any more. We have provided you with charts, graphs, studies, articles, and more. When you start showing some sincerity in your posts, and I no longer believe you are a character designed to show how silly the left is, MAYBE I'll actually engage you again. Until that time, when you preach your statist collectivist nonsense, I'll simply say "no."

 

You cannot

• explain,
• support,
• or show

a single theory or premise of yours.  It shows an intellectual dishonesty, especially when you impugn my intellectual integrity after your excuses for not defending your own theories. 

 

It you "have done so in may other posts," then it should be EASY.  

 

Let's see it! 

 

 

EDIT:  Sir, I am beginning to suspect it is YOU who is not posting sincerely. Indeed, as someone had said, "projecting."

 

Can you Prove this New Deal will help anyone? I keep asking you to do this But you havent.

The system in place is far from perfect. But its still better than the one you want.. Unless you would like to start proveing it.

 

Yes.  The post New Deal policies not only rescued us from the Great Depression, but also sustained the greatest and most prosperous middle-class in United States history.  And this included, since suspended, wage controls, free tuition (something I have loooong advocated for all grade levels), varied insurance programs, unemployment relief, investor protections (SEC, and I suggest an SEC with a BITE, not just a roar), outlaw on union-bashing, unions, and so forth.

 

It were these programs, policies, and institutions that created and sustained the middle-class.

 

Okay, so you did just what you accused me of, thus showing your insincerity. You have proven nothing. Let's see you PROVE the New Deal did what you said.

Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer


It occurred to me that we have a problem; we do not know what documents, or people, really say.  We read beyond the plain and clear meaning to either handicap our analysis of it (reading it out of context) or expanding meaning more than generously.
 
Instead of a topic, however, on what does the Constitution really say, we turn our attention to Adam Smith's magnum opus The Wealth of Nations (1776)  It was Adam Smith who laid the ground work for the principles of capitalism and today's modern market economy.  First and foremost, let's know who our author was:  a philosopher.  He was a professor, actually, at Glasgow University.  He was also a tutor for the children of nobility.  
 
The "invisible hand" is mentioned precisely once in The Wealth of Nations.  Although it endures as a manifesto of the right, the ideas in the book are not as "conservative" as one would think.  As you can see below, Smith was a nuanced thinker and did not endorse an unfettered free market.
 
TAXES
Adam Smith advocated a system of taxation on luxuries but not on necessities:
"Taxes upon luxuries have no tendency to raise the price of any other commodities except that of the commodities taxed.  Taxes upon necessaries, by raising the wages of labour, necessarily tend to raise the price of all manufactures, and consequently to diminish . . . their sale and consumption.  Taxes upon luxuries are finally paid by the consumers of commodities taxed without any retribution."
 
INVISIBLE HAND
Adam Smith referred to people pursuing their own self-interest for the benefit of society:
"An invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.  Nor is it worse always the worse for 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." 
 
CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
Adam Smith did not have a lot of confidence in the management of shareholders' money:
"Being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. . . . Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such company." 
 
WORKERS' RIGHTS
Adam Smith favored, gasp, "regulation" to secure workers' rights:
"When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
Adam Smith even continues on corporate monopolies and anti-unionization:
"The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.  We have laws against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it." 
Adam Smith also understood how wages can be set artificially low, through laws, and through corporate collusion:
"Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour."
 
 
Some of Smith's greatest contributions, which I would be remiss if I neglected to mention, were on value and labor ("the real price . . . is the toil and trouble of acquiring it") and the division of labor.  Obama, despite calls to nationalize banks by the "left" and "right," has sought to reduce health care costs for everyone.  And for this, he is decried a "socialist."  If you read Smith's own words above, who sounds more like a socialist?
 

 

he isn't "seeking to reduce health care costs" for anyone. What he is doing, or trying to do, is the same thing that hasn't reduced costs anywhere, at any time in history. What he is seeking to do is equally unsustainable as our current system, if not moreso, at the cost of freedom. He is using outdated failed theories that are not slowing medical inflation anywhere on earth.

there is only ONE way to reduced costs. The market.

• Explain
• Support
• Show

how Obama's plan will

1. not reduce costs;
2. cost freedom; and
3. how the market will reduce costs.

All I see are statement of conclusions, which should be your LAST paragraph.  I need the FIRST and MIDDLE paragraphs.

 

Sorry I and others have done so in many other posts, and since I no longer believe you are posting sincerely at all, you are not worth wasting my time any more. We have provided you with charts, graphs, studies, articles, and more. When you start showing some sincerity in your posts, and I no longer believe you are a character designed to show how silly the left is, MAYBE I'll actually engage you again. Until that time, when you preach your statist collectivist nonsense, I'll simply say "no."

 

You cannot

• explain,
• support,
• or show

a single theory or premise of yours.  It shows an intellectual dishonesty, especially when you impugn my intellectual integrity after your excuses for not defending your own theories. 

 

It you "have done so in may other posts," then it should be EASY.  

 

Let's see it! 

 

 

EDIT:  Sir, I am beginning to suspect it is YOU who is not posting sincerely. Indeed, as someone had said, "projecting."

 

Can you Prove this New Deal will help anyone? I keep asking you to do this But you havent.

The system in place is far from perfect. But its still better than the one you want.. Unless you would like to start proveing it.

 

Yes.  The post New Deal policies not only rescued us from the Great Depression, but also sustained the greatest and most prosperous middle-class in United States history.  And this included, since suspended, wage controls, free tuition (something I have loooong advocated for all grade levels), varied insurance programs, unemployment relief, investor protections (SEC, and I suggest an SEC with a BITE, not just a roar), outlaw on union-bashing, unions, and so forth.

 

It were these programs, policies, and institutions that created and sustained the middle-class.

 

That dosent Prove anything... Its just a Rehash of what you keep saying.. tho shorter thankfully.

The new deal diden't get us outa the great Depression, WW2 did that.

Wage controls would strangle the Uppermiddle class who make 70% of the jobs in this country.. you really want to do that?

Free tuition is silly. Who is going to pay the teachers and school systems.. Taxes on a burdend econamy?

Why outlaw union-bashing? Unions are whats killing the manufactureing Jobs in this country.(that and Regulation and taxes) I havent heard of a single company saying "were moveing to India to be free of this Free market." Its to get away from Unions and Taxes.

Honestly.. You just proved why a New deal is a Bad thing.

declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami


 
Wage controls would strangle the Uppermiddle class who make 70% of the jobs in this country..

 

Before we proceed any further, show me how the upper-middle-class make 70% of the jobs in this country.

declaredemer

Fisher,

 

 

I was reading in Government Executive magazine about DHS's new radio frequency identification system in CALIFORNIA.  It is to identify travelers coming into and out of the country.  NOW, call me a thinker, crazy, or socialist, but I THOUGHT the problem was those not passing through security checkpoints.  Border and Customs Protection, primary users of RFID, got huge budget increase in 2008.  2008, SBInet was authorized, administered by Boeing (look up the subcontractors online).  Is this what you mean by corporate and business relationship, or fascism?  www.govexec.com/features/0809-15/0809-15s10.htm

 

 

You seem to think a public option is "fascism" or "socialism" or unConstitution, yet I still have yet to see any analysis other than statements of conclusion.

 

 

I await your response to:

• Adam Smith's own words;
• Information in Government Executive magazine; and
• a showing how the public OPTION is unConstitutional. 

Fishermage

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer


It occurred to me that we have a problem; we do not know what documents, or people, really say.  We read beyond the plain and clear meaning to either handicap our analysis of it (reading it out of context) or expanding meaning more than generously.
 
Instead of a topic, however, on what does the Constitution really say, we turn our attention to Adam Smith's magnum opus The Wealth of Nations (1776)  It was Adam Smith who laid the ground work for the principles of capitalism and today's modern market economy.  First and foremost, let's know who our author was:  a philosopher.  He was a professor, actually, at Glasgow University.  He was also a tutor for the children of nobility.  
 
The "invisible hand" is mentioned precisely once in The Wealth of Nations.  Although it endures as a manifesto of the right, the ideas in the book are not as "conservative" as one would think.  As you can see below, Smith was a nuanced thinker and did not endorse an unfettered free market.
 
TAXES
Adam Smith advocated a system of taxation on luxuries but not on necessities:
"Taxes upon luxuries have no tendency to raise the price of any other commodities except that of the commodities taxed.  Taxes upon necessaries, by raising the wages of labour, necessarily tend to raise the price of all manufactures, and consequently to diminish . . . their sale and consumption.  Taxes upon luxuries are finally paid by the consumers of commodities taxed without any retribution."
 
INVISIBLE HAND
Adam Smith referred to people pursuing their own self-interest for the benefit of society:
"An invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.  Nor is it worse always the worse for 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." 
 
CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
Adam Smith did not have a lot of confidence in the management of shareholders' money:
"Being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. . . . Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such company." 
 
WORKERS' RIGHTS
Adam Smith favored, gasp, "regulation" to secure workers' rights:
"When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
Adam Smith even continues on corporate monopolies and anti-unionization:
"The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.  We have laws against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it." 
Adam Smith also understood how wages can be set artificially low, through laws, and through corporate collusion:
"Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour."
 
 
Some of Smith's greatest contributions, which I would be remiss if I neglected to mention, were on value and labor ("the real price . . . is the toil and trouble of acquiring it") and the division of labor.  Obama, despite calls to nationalize banks by the "left" and "right," has sought to reduce health care costs for everyone.  And for this, he is decried a "socialist."  If you read Smith's own words above, who sounds more like a socialist?
 

 

he isn't "seeking to reduce health care costs" for anyone. What he is doing, or trying to do, is the same thing that hasn't reduced costs anywhere, at any time in history. What he is seeking to do is equally unsustainable as our current system, if not moreso, at the cost of freedom. He is using outdated failed theories that are not slowing medical inflation anywhere on earth.

there is only ONE way to reduced costs. The market.

• Explain
• Support
• Show

how Obama's plan will

1. not reduce costs;
2. cost freedom; and
3. how the market will reduce costs.

All I see are statement of conclusions, which should be your LAST paragraph.  I need the FIRST and MIDDLE paragraphs.

 

Sorry I and others have done so in many other posts, and since I no longer believe you are posting sincerely at all, you are not worth wasting my time any more. We have provided you with charts, graphs, studies, articles, and more. When you start showing some sincerity in your posts, and I no longer believe you are a character designed to show how silly the left is, MAYBE I'll actually engage you again. Until that time, when you preach your statist collectivist nonsense, I'll simply say "no."

 

You cannot

• explain,
• support,
• or show

a single theory or premise of yours.  It shows an intellectual dishonesty, especially when you impugn my intellectual integrity after your excuses for not defending your own theories. 

 

It you "have done so in may other posts," then it should be EASY.  

 

Let's see it! 

 

 

EDIT:  Sir, I am beginning to suspect it is YOU who is not posting sincerely. Indeed, as someone had said, "projecting."

 

Can you Prove this New Deal will help anyone? I keep asking you to do this But you havent.

The system in place is far from perfect. But its still better than the one you want.. Unless you would like to start proveing it.

 

Yes.  The post New Deal policies not only rescued us from the Great Depression, but also sustained the greatest and most prosperous middle-class in United States history.  And this included, since suspended, wage controls, free tuition (something I have loooong advocated for all grade levels), varied insurance programs, unemployment relief, investor protections (SEC, and I suggest an SEC with a BITE, not just a roar), outlaw on union-bashing, unions, and so forth.

 

It were these programs, policies, and institutions that created and sustained the middle-class.

 

That dosent Prove anything... Its just a Rehash of what you keep saying.. tho shorter thankfully.

The new deal diden't get us outa the great Depression, WW2 did that.

Wage controls would strangle the Uppermiddle class who make 70% of the jobs in this country.. you really want to do that?

Free tuition is silly. Who is going to pay the teachers and school systems.. Taxes on a burdend econamy?

Why outlaw union-bashing? Unions are whats killing the manufactureing Jobs in this country.(that and Regulation and taxes) I havent heard of a single company saying "were moveing to India to be free of this Free market." Its to get away from Unions and Taxes.

Honestly.. You just proved why a New deal is a Bad thing.

 

A minor point of difference my friend. I would tend to think that rebuilding Europe and Japan after the war actually finally pulled us out of the depression more than the actual war did -- even though the war started the ball rolling.

It seems that the New Deal helped in some areas, but mostly prolonged the depression. It may even have made it worse. It certainly didn't end it.

Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer


Fisher,
 
 
I was reading in Government Executive magazine about DHS's new radio frequency identification system in CALIFORNIA.  It is to identify travelers coming into and out of the country.  NOW, call me a thinker, crazy, or socialist, but I THOUGHT the problem was those not passing through security checkpoints.  Border and Customs Protection, primary users of RFID, got huge budget increase in 2008.  2008, SBInet was authorized, administered by Boeing (look up the subcontractors online).  Is this what you mean by corporate and business relationship, or fascism?  www.govexec.com/features/0809-15/0809-15s10.htm
 
 
You seem to think a public option is "fascism" or "socialism" or unConstitution, yet I still have yet to see any analysis other than statements of conclusion.
 
 
I await your response to:

Adam Smith's own words;
Information in Government Executive magazine; and
a showing how the public OPTION is unConstitutional. 

 

the constitution states very clearly that anything not expressly delegated to the federal government is to be left to the states or to the people. That includes obviously health care. Done deal. It is unconstitutional.

I will give you no more response, because your insincerity no longer warrants it.

I await your sincerity. When I see some of that, we'll continue.

You can start by PROVING that the New Deal ended the depression.

declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage
 the constitution states very clearly that anything not expressly delegated to the federal government is to be left to the states or to the people.

 

Is this your interpretation of the Tenth Amendment - again?

Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami


 
Wage controls would strangle the Uppermiddle class who make 70% of the jobs in this country..

 

Before we proceed any further, show me how the upper-middle-class make 70% of the jobs in this country.

 

Before you read all the links just a Disclamer, I skimmed most of these to quickly provide links. I can update more tomorow with better ones If you so Desire. While Im at it. Why dont you Show us and Prove who really is Provideing the Jobs in this country.

Top Ten Reasons to Love U.S. Small Business

Small Business Economic Outlook: Assessing Current Conditions

Why Small Companies Will Win in This Economy Blog...

Immigrant Business Owners Make Big Impact on U.S. Economy

If thats not enough to convert you that What you want will hurt small Buisness then I dont know what will.. Oh and google "small business make up of economy" for Lots more.

 

Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage
 the constitution states very clearly that anything not expressly delegated to the federal government is to be left to the states or to the people.

 

Is this your interpretation of the Tenth Amendment - again?

 

Um.. that IS the Tenth Amendment... thats Why were a Republic and NOT a democrazy...

declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami


 
Wage controls would strangle the Uppermiddle class who make 70% of the jobs in this country..

 

Before we proceed any further, show me how the upper-middle-class make 70% of the jobs in this country.

 

Before you read all the links just a Disclamer, I skimmed most of these to quickly provide links. I can update more tomorow with better ones If you so Desire. While Im at it. Why dont you Show us and Prove who really is Provideing the Jobs in this country.

Top Ten Reasons to Love U.S. Small Business

Small Business Economic Outlook: Assessing Current Conditions

Why Small Companies Will Win in This Economy Blog...

Immigrant Business Owners Make Big Impact on U.S. Economy

If thats not enough to convert you that What you want will hurt small Buisness then I dont know what will.. Oh and google "small business make up of economy" for Lots more.

 

 

Yes.  I will be busy tomorrow, first day of classes --posting a lot to actually distract me from thinking about tomorrow too much-- but please show me, even send me a personal message.

 

 

Rest assured, I am eager to "see" how the upper-middle-class "makes 70% of the jobs."

Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami


 
Wage controls would strangle the Uppermiddle class who make 70% of the jobs in this country..

 

Before we proceed any further, show me how the upper-middle-class make 70% of the jobs in this country.

 

Before you read all the links just a Disclamer, I skimmed most of these to quickly provide links. I can update more tomorow with better ones If you so Desire. While Im at it. Why dont you Show us and Prove who really is Provideing the Jobs in this country.

Top Ten Reasons to Love U.S. Small Business

Small Business Economic Outlook: Assessing Current Conditions

Why Small Companies Will Win in This Economy Blog...

Immigrant Business Owners Make Big Impact on U.S. Economy

If thats not enough to convert you that What you want will hurt small Buisness then I dont know what will.. Oh and google "small business make up of economy" for Lots more.

 

 

Yes.  I will be busy tomorrow, first day of classes --posting a lot to actually distract me from thinking about tomorrow too much-- but please show me, even send me a personal message.

 

 

Rest assured, I am eager to "see" how the upper-middle-class "makes 70% of the jobs."

 

Thats Ok. Ill eagerly Await the next few days while you try and figure out what "Really" makes the jobs in this country.

declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami


 
Wage controls would strangle the Uppermiddle class who make 70% of the jobs in this country..

 

Before we proceed any further, show me how the upper-middle-class make 70% of the jobs in this country.

 

Before you read all the links just a Disclamer, I skimmed most of these to quickly provide links. I can update more tomorow with better ones If you so Desire. While Im at it. Why dont you Show us and Prove who really is Provideing the Jobs in this country.

Top Ten Reasons to Love U.S. Small Business

Small Business Economic Outlook: Assessing Current Conditions

Why Small Companies Will Win in This Economy Blog...

Immigrant Business Owners Make Big Impact on U.S. Economy

If thats not enough to convert you that What you want will hurt small Buisness then I dont know what will.. Oh and google "small business make up of economy" for Lots more.

 

 

Yes.  I will be busy tomorrow, first day of classes --posting a lot to actually distract me from thinking about tomorrow too much-- but please show me, even send me a personal message.

 

 

Rest assured, I am eager to "see" how the upper-middle-class "makes 70% of the jobs."

 

Thats Ok. Ill eagerly Await the next few days while you try and figure out what "Really" makes the jobs in this country.

 

You are saying that you cannot support this statement:

the upper-middle-class makes 70% of the jobs?

Fishermage

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage
 the constitution states very clearly that anything not expressly delegated to the federal government is to be left to the states or to the people.

 

Is this your interpretation of the Tenth Amendment - again?

 

Um.. that IS the Tenth Amendment... thats Why were a Republic and NOT a democrazy...

 

This is the proof that he is just trolling and does not post sincerely. He is most likely playing a character he has created to show how silly the left is. It's sad because such behavior serves no one.

Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami


 
Wage controls would strangle the Uppermiddle class who make 70% of the jobs in this country..

 

Before we proceed any further, show me how the upper-middle-class make 70% of the jobs in this country.

 

Before you read all the links just a Disclamer, I skimmed most of these to quickly provide links. I can update more tomorow with better ones If you so Desire. While Im at it. Why dont you Show us and Prove who really is Provideing the Jobs in this country.

Top Ten Reasons to Love U.S. Small Business

Small Business Economic Outlook: Assessing Current Conditions

Why Small Companies Will Win in This Economy Blog...

Immigrant Business Owners Make Big Impact on U.S. Economy

If thats not enough to convert you that What you want will hurt small Buisness then I dont know what will.. Oh and google "small business make up of economy" for Lots more.

 

 

Yes.  I will be busy tomorrow, first day of classes --posting a lot to actually distract me from thinking about tomorrow too much-- but please show me, even send me a personal message.

 

 

Rest assured, I am eager to "see" how the upper-middle-class "makes 70% of the jobs."

 

Thats Ok. Ill eagerly Await the next few days while you try and figure out what "Really" makes the jobs in this country.

 

You are saying that you cannot support this statement:

the upper-middle-class makes 70% of the jobs?

 

Are you saying that you still can't Disprove it?

And the Small Buisness Does make up a significant part of the Jobs in this country..

We can keep dooing this. Ive provided links(Tho rushed) you still havent. Im winning.

declaredemer

Originally posted by Ekibiogami


Are you saying that you still can't Disprove it?
And the Small Buisness Does make up 70% of the Jobs in this country..
We can keep dooing this. Ive provided links(Tho rushed) you still havent. Im winning.

 

It is not my job to disprove anything.  All I asked you to do is support your claims.  Is it now your claim that "small businesses make 70% of the jobs" or the "upper-middle-class"?  Or, is the upper-middle-class the small business?

 

I do not know anything about winning or losing, but if you say so . . . .