AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Your statement:

Quote:

His theory focused on the dynamics of how a system of economics operates naturally and efficiently to the mutual benefit of those participating in it if it is allowed to operate without outside interference.

I'll ask again, where did you study economics?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Because 'ethics' had no part in Smith's philosophy of capitalism. Perhaps he didn't call it capitalism, but that is what his theory was just the same. His theory focused on the dynamics of how a system of economics operates naturally and efficiently to the mutual benefit of those participating in it if it is allowed to operate without outside interference. He was quite clear that morality or ethics plays little part in that process as each person works for his/her own benefit and only inadvertently benefits those who are unseen and unconsidered in the process.

Once we understand what Adams is actually saying, we can then debate whether humankind is best served by that natural process or best served by government deciding what benefits humankind should have. If you wish to insert ethics into it, is the result of Adams style economics more humane and beneficial to humankind that other economic systems?

To what Adams are you referring here?

As said: Smith couldn't call it capitalism because not only the word but the concept was ... not ripe in those days.
Noone doubts that he provided one of the best-known intellectual rationales for free trade and capitalism.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Not mine, however. I had a much different impression of the WSJ piece than he.

To begin, most of it is useless partisan bitching. The WSJ makes these same comments about ANY tax increase or ANY regulation increase. They are primarily concerned with making money for investors and ALL other factors are secondary to this.

Mostly, however, they have a fundamental misunderstanding of why the market has continued to fall. Naturally, some industries are not going to do as well under Obama's policies. Tough ****. That's what happens whent the country picks a whole new group of people to run the place in 2 elections.

The market has continued to fall, b/c as time goes by it becomes more and more apparent that the gains of the last 8 years were phony in nature. They were gains based on the trading of these MBS and credit default swaps, not on actual productions or assets.

Here's a great graph showing this - and it's from the WSJ itself:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/444018067_a091f455c7.jpg?v=0

GDP did not rise due to any actual increase, but instead to account for this money created by financial trickery. Now that the trickery has been revealed, the GDP is likely to return to levels which reflect our ACTUAL production as an economy, and not games with money to make it appear from nowhere.

The WSJ is perhaps the most partisan editorial board in the country; their opinion on matters financial should be recorded as the opposite of the truth. What they call 'attacks' on investors and 'risk-takers' are really just asking these people to play by the same rules as everyone else in the country.

The best part about all this, however? The Republicans cannot stop any of these changes, even if they wanted to. They don't have the power or the numbers in either house. They don't have any public support, b/c they proved their incompetence when the public last trusted them.

So you will see some sort of cap-and-trade, a universal health care system, and raising of taxes on the rich. Republicans will bitch but they can do nothing about it. Enjoy the good times ahead, guys!

More than anything else, this describes American Conservatism in 2008 and beyond - a group of people, out of power, who cannot enact any of their agenda or have any meaningful say in the policy formation of the next several years. An impotent, gelded group. That is the result of your former folly.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Oh I meant Adam Smith, not Adams. (I am writing a short piece on Ansel Adams for another project this morning and my brain failed to track all the way back to the subject here. . . . .)

And of course the concept of capitalism was not 'ripe' as you call it in his day. He was a pioneer in the field. Capitalism is a relatively new concept in the history of the world and he is sometimes referred to as the father of modern economics or capitalism. Not sure who actually coined the term.

But you're right. He provided the first well thought out rationale for free trade and capitalism and his concepts have been debated and incorporated into additional and expanded theories for some time now.

I still say that Williams essay is the best practical application of Smith's concept that I've ever seen which is why it impressed me so much.

Out of curiosity, Walter, do you agree with Adam Smith's basic concept?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And of course the concept of capitalism was not 'ripe' as you call it in his day. He was a pioneer in the field. Capitalism is a relatively new concept in the history of the world and he is sometimes referred to as the father of modern economics or capitalism. Not sure who actually coined the term.

But you're right. He provided the first well thought out rationale for free trade and capitalism and his concepts have been debated and incorporated into additional and expanded theories for some time now.

I still say that Williams essay is the best practical application of Smith's concept that I've ever seen which is why it impressed me so much.

Out of curiosity, Walter, do you agree with Adam Smith's basic concept?

You can't say/write at all, Foxfyre, that you were wrong with an response, isn't it?

To your question:
I think, Smith was a great man of his time, as was Marx - to name another but diametrically opposed philosopher of that period.

Both "theories" have developed over the years. But you still find a few, who follow strictly Marx. And Smith.

I don't agree with both concepts - but I don't live in their times either. (But I understand from where they came - otherwise many years at history departments would have been watsed Wink

)

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

To your question:
I think, Smith was a great man of his time, as was Marx - to name another but diametrically opposed philosopher of that period.

So Marx was great, for what? His philosophy leading to the dying of a few hundreds of millions, Walter?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

You can't say/write at all, Foxfyre, that you were wrong with an response, isn't it?

Okay, what do you think I can't say or write about that I was wrong? What do you think I misstated?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

So Marx was great, for what? His philosophy leading to the dying of a few hundreds of millions, Walter?

This response, okie, just proves that you didn't read anything about Marx.
And that your high school obviously didn't offer philosophy classes.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

It's useless, Foxfyre. Others have tried it before.
Keep being yourself, because the others are already taken.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

So Marx was great, for what? His philosophy leading to the dying of a few hundreds of millions, Walter?

This response, okie, just proves that you didn't read anything about Marx.
And that your high school obviously didn't offer philosophy classes.

Your response made me so perplex that I deleted one sentence:

But we know already that you don't have a great interest in history.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

It proves nothing of the kind. Because YOU think Marx was a great man does not make it so any more than me saying that Ronald Reagan was a great man makes it so. Okie is no more required to share your opinion of Karl Marx than you are required to share my opinion of Ronald Reagan. Neither of you have to be declared stupid for your point of view and your snotty remark about his lack of education is entirely uncalled for and you should apologize.

The fact is that both Adolph Hitler and Vladimir Lenin were great admirers and quasi-disciples of Marx and used Marx's theories to undergird their own. And it was by their hand that millions died.

Did they misinterpret and misuse Marx's philosophy? Of course they did. Do you interpret Adam Smith as I interpret him or Walter Williams interprets him? I don't know, but you have not provided any rationale for why Smith is wrong. I accept that you disagree with him. Is it not okay for Okie to disagree with Marx without him being branded uneducated?

And continuing to claim your superior education doesn't strenthen your opinion on these things.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

It's useless, Foxfyre. Others have tried it before.
Keep being yourself, because the others are already taken.

Others have accused before, but whenever I ask them to show me how I am 'dishonest' or 'refuse to admit to something' they run for the tall grass. I presume that is what you are doing too. I thought we were having a civil discussion on something but you couldn't resist inserting your snotty remark could you? I swear there must be something in the water that liberals drink that causes that syndrome and makes them incapable of exchanging ideas at face value. So few of you seem to be able to resist being personally insulting.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Yeah, that's what he's doing! Laughing

Alternate hypothesis - he refuses to waste his time on you.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

No he refuses to put his opinion where his mouth is apparently. He had no problem engaging me until I refused to agree with him and provided an opinion that he apparently cannot support. And so he became personally insulting. As you usually do.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You have a strange concept of insults.

But whatever the reason: sorry, Foxfyre. I honestly didn't want to insult you.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Well thank you for that Walter. I consider being accused of something you won't explain an insult. I consider accusing somebody of being uneducated when they express an opinion to be an insult.

I have come to expect some people to be insulting because I think they're too dumb or ignorant to be anything else. I have not thought of you in that way which is why I complained when you did it.

I think intelligent, well educated people should be able to articulate a rationale for their opinions and engage in civil discourse without reverting to ad hominem or personal insults. But that's just me.

I would still like to know why you thought me dishonest or unwilling to admit a mistake. If I did that, it was inadvertent but I will own up to it. If not, I would appreciate a chance to explain myself. And you still owe Okie an apology.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

So Marx was great, for what? His philosophy leading to the dying of a few hundreds of millions, Walter?

This response, okie, just proves that you didn't read anything about Marx.
And that your high school obviously didn't offer philosophy classes.

No, our high school did not have a class named that, nor did I take it in college, I was more interested in more applicable classes. As to your comment in another post that I am not interested in history, I was not interested in it as a younger person, but later I became interested.

But back to Marx, no I don't regard Marx as a great man, he was a famous man, but not great. Not unless you believe a philosophy that requires force to maintain, leading to suffering, torture, and death. If you call that great, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I have mine as well.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, Thank you for that graph that shows average wages staying stagnant while GDP grew on fake assets valuations. That's what I've been saying in so many different ways, I'm surprised people can't or couldn't see "it."

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I went back and re-read that WSJ piece very carefully, and maybe I missed it, but I couldn't find anything in it regarding wages or GDP. What I saw was a pretty good analysis for why the economy is not recovering from a recession that historically would have bottomed and there should be signs that we are beginning to come out of it now. What I saw was observation of policies that are hindering or worsening that recession. It rightfully identified the stock market as the indicator that the Obama policies were not inspiring confidence. But nope, nothing about taxes specifically or the GDP or wages.

Perhaps somebody might like to directly address that with something other than Democratic or leftwing blog talking points?

I did watch President Obama recently telling people that the declining market is no big deal as it naturally goes up and down--it's like a political tracking poll which only underscores his earlier admission that he doesn't know squat about the market. But how utterly ignorant and insensitive a remark is that? Countless retirees depend on their investments to live. Others ready to retire, and who may be required to retire, have seen their 401k's and IRA's reduced by more than a half, in some cases by three fourths. Businesses with eroding stock can't get credit and jobs by the tens of thousands can be lost.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

It's useless, Foxfyre. Others have tried it before.
Keep being yourself, because the others are already taken.

Others have accused before, but whenever I ask them to show me how I am 'dishonest' or 'refuse to admit to something' they run for the tall grass. I presume that is what you are doing too. I thought we were having a civil discussion on something but you couldn't resist inserting your snotty remark could you? I swear there must be something in the water that liberals drink that causes that syndrome and makes them incapable of exchanging ideas at face value. So few of you seem to be able to resist being personally insulting.

Run for the tall grass? Baloney. Get over yourself. Your dishonesty and inconsistency has been repeatedly exposed. Responding to any of your dribble is an exercise in futility because your modus operandi is to allege that you didn't say what you actually said. That people run out of patience when dealing with your endless repertoire of obfuscations should be no surprise. You have no problem dishing out personal insults and, in return, you deserve whatever incivility that is thrown back at you. You reap what you sow.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know