Methinks the OP has not actually read that much, if any, adam smith
Adam smith's books are far from being anything libertarian
__________________ Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least.
The most barbarous fact in all christendom is the labor market. The mere term sufficiently expresses the animalism of commercial civilization. They who buy and they who sell in the labor market are alike dehumanized by the inhuman traffic in the brains and blood and bones of human beings.
The bottom line is that money has no meaning anymore, and therefore classical economic theories that depict money as a currency are all in failure. It makes no sense that a construction worker earns twenty times less than a simple banking accountant, and it makes even less sense that a couple of billionaires earn a hundred thousand times that share for doing nothing. What our economies need is to come back to reality, if we are to advert the next crisis, and if we want to fight poverty in the world.
Methinks the OP has not actually read that much, if any, adam smith
Adam smith's books are far from being anything libertarian
I have not read much on economic theory, no. Just a little, and very little by A. Smith. What I am left with however is the impression that Smith's approach to economy is hardly at all short of religious. With currency being his deity. Now, I have not read much, as I said, but that is my impression after reading but a little.
__________________
Originally Posted by Martin Luther King Jr.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
Originally Posted by Matthew 6:24
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
"no man can serve two masters; ye cannot serve both God and mammon." - Bible
Originally Posted by Faith Guardian
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
When I heard a fellow Christian say "We must bomb our enemies!" I asked myself: What would Jesus do? Would Jesus torture? Would Jesus bomb or wage war? No. He loves us all, and came to give life, love, hope and salvation. Not hatred, death and damnation. Jesus called us to be His servants on earth, to follow Him in His loving and caring ways. To love when all others hate. Can we as Christians claim both to serve Him and to support torture and war? I think there is too large a gap for this to be possible. If we love and serve Jesus, we love and serve our fellow man. Including our enemies.
I firmly believe we cannot both serve Jesus and war, strife and hatred. We must choose. I choose Jesus, and I choose love.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I have not read much on economic theory, no. Just a little, and very little by A. Smith. What I am left with however is the impression that Smith's approach to economy is hardly at all short of religious. With currency being his deity. Now, I have not read much, as I said, but that is my impression after reading but a little.
Your impressions are incorrect and if you have the time and drive to power through it, give wealth of nations a looksie.
__________________ Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least.
The most barbarous fact in all christendom is the labor market. The mere term sufficiently expresses the animalism of commercial civilization. They who buy and they who sell in the labor market are alike dehumanized by the inhuman traffic in the brains and blood and bones of human beings.
Your impressions are incorrect and if you have the time and drive to power through it, give wealth of nations a looksie.
I don't at this time. But I do intend to read it when I do. It's an important work, and thus I have it up on my list of musts. Along with Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, The Origin of Species, The Art of War, etc. I also intend to do a study on philosophy next year. I know (and delight in) that I have a lot to learn. How dull life would be if that was not so.
Obviously you have read some of Smith's work however. So, what would you call Smith's statements regarding the invisible hand? To me they seem more than slightly religious. Wouldn't you say that when Smith says:
" he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. [ ] By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. [ ] every individual, it is evident, can, in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him." this gives an impression that his belief in free market is somewhat mystic/religious?
__________________
Originally Posted by Martin Luther King Jr.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
Originally Posted by Matthew 6:24
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
"no man can serve two masters; ye cannot serve both God and mammon." - Bible
Originally Posted by Faith Guardian
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
When I heard a fellow Christian say "We must bomb our enemies!" I asked myself: What would Jesus do? Would Jesus torture? Would Jesus bomb or wage war? No. He loves us all, and came to give life, love, hope and salvation. Not hatred, death and damnation. Jesus called us to be His servants on earth, to follow Him in His loving and caring ways. To love when all others hate. Can we as Christians claim both to serve Him and to support torture and war? I think there is too large a gap for this to be possible. If we love and serve Jesus, we love and serve our fellow man. Including our enemies.
I firmly believe we cannot both serve Jesus and war, strife and hatred. We must choose. I choose Jesus, and I choose love.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The origin of species is dumb, you'd do better to actually look at a modern textbook. The art of war is likewise pretty stupid as it's a giant book of common sense phrases which such genius as "Don't go to war unless you're prepared" Oh really, sun tzu? How astute.
Das kapital is incredibly boring and very, very hard to read. I wasn't able to get through it but good luck. It's informative but reading it is on par with getting a tooth pulled.
__________________ Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least.
The most barbarous fact in all christendom is the labor market. The mere term sufficiently expresses the animalism of commercial civilization. They who buy and they who sell in the labor market are alike dehumanized by the inhuman traffic in the brains and blood and bones of human beings.
Smith's entire analysis is predicated on an economy consisting of a large number of small businesses which are largely immobile (i.e. labor is more mobile than capital).
Well none of that is true anymore.
The economy consists of a couple very very very large corporations in each sector which can move easily leaving labor less mobile than capital.
Why would anyone use an analysis for which none of the premises are true anymore?
I mean I know economics is the art of ignoring reality to reach politically correct solutions but this is ridiculous.
I have not read much on economic theory, no. Just a little, and very little by A. Smith. What I am left with however is the impression that Smith's approach to economy is hardly at all short of religious. With currency being his deity. Now, I have not read much, as I said, but that is my impression after reading but a little.
Milton Friedman was a great economist. He is of the Chicago School of Economics. I like a lot of his ideas.
Keyne's economics is logical enough, and can actually be helpful in moderating the worst effects of economic downturns. There is, however, one fatal flaw. In order for Keynesianism to be viable over the long run, government must be careful to sluice as much money out of the economy when times are good as it sluices in when times are bad. And here's where the wheels come off: since pulling money out is unpopular, we end up with more and more sluiced in.
This is why our national debt is $12 trillion and counting, and the price of everything seems to go up and up.
Linear Mode
