Would Adam Smith be a Republican or a Democrat today?

[Yakuda]

Actually I agree with you. I think that when people volunteer to help they do it not only for the chance to do good but because it makes them happy to do it and as such is self-interest.

This is why I think altruism is largely a myth per the technical definition of altruism.

Now, that being said, it should NOT be taken to mean that helping others is a purely selfish thing. It is a good thing and it's good that we are the kind of animal that gains pleasure from helping others. It is likely that if we didn't have that experience we would be much worse than we already are as a species.

The side effect of our self interest to help others is that people benefit from our self interest. That's a good thing and whether it's selfish or not is less important than people receive the help they need.

 

[Truth Detector]

I can't believe I have to describe the Gilded Age to you. I actually sort of described them in detail in the body of my post. But since I only have a short time to explain a HUGE amount of American history to you I will simply point you to some resources. Hit up the library and read about:

1. The Gilded Age
2. Robber Barons
3. Labor strikes (like the Homestead Strike in which Carnegie allowed Pinkertons to kill striking workers, there are about a billion other examples from the time, like Matewan, VA and many many others)
4. Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906
5. Love Canal, NY
6. Woburn, MA
7. PG&E Contamination of drinking water in Hinkley, CA

That should be enough to get you started.

Again, what does that have to do with Market capitalism? Yes, there are some bad actors and those companies who are bad actors are no longer in business and their leaders in jail.

Because they campaigned for things like the Pure Food and Drug act of 1906, they conducted work strikes to get better conditions (and were often gunned down by the owners of the company and the Pinkertons). Because thousands of families across the US have demanded repeatedly that chemical companies be highly regulated and control how they get rid of haz waste.

They don't want to kill, but they also don't want to pay extra if they can just dump that chemical in the creek out behind your house.

Dumb anecdotal arguments. Do societies in Marxist nations have cleaner air? No pollution? Better safety?

Radium Girls (good book, worth a read if you have a strong stomach)
Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906
Labor actions throughout the early 20th century
The various law suits and class action suits brought by countless families in the US after they found their drinking water contaminated

The list goes on.

And yet, you still cannot make an argument that states where laissez fair ever existed.

You write a post complaining about regulatory oversight on the markets and you ask this question?

Where is this post complaining about regulatory oversight? You're quite the scarecrow with your massive strawmen.

Just because I know more American history than you do and have a career's worth of work in the chemical industry should not be a threat to you.

You only think you know. But coming up with a coherent on-topic argument is not one of them. But hey, scarecrow, you have got strawmen and pounding your tiny insignificant little fists on the table down to a science.

 

[Truth Detector]

Because in 40 years of the promise of Trickle Down Economics it has NEVER WORKED. NOT. ONCE. EVER.

There is no theory that is called "trickle down" in economics. That was a moronic Democratic meme intended to dupe gullible dipshits like you into voting for them.

What is even more ignorant is the notion of "trickle up" economics which Obama and Biden espouse. Now that is the definition of stupid.

 

[Truth Detector]

so in reality there goes the whole fortune 500.

what should we about it?

just keep lying to ourselves?

So, what would be better than markets and fiat currency? Describe in detail.

I don't think you comprehend the benefit of fiat currency. Should we all carry heavy bags of silver and gold on our persons with the constant threat of robbery and bury our treasures where no one may find them?

 

[Truth Detector]

how many winners and losers do you think the government has a hand in picking?

Under Democrats, it can be many. Under Republicans, not so many.

So, what is your argument? What would be a better way?

 

[Truth Detector]

Hmmm, let me see.....

That might be why I assumed as I did.

He didn't say "no oversight" did he? He didn't say "no regulation" did he? Dumb strawman pontificating dullard.

 

[Kafka]

Again, what does that have to do with Market capitalism? Yes, there are some bad actors and those companies who are bad actors are no longer in business and their leaders in jail.



Dumb anecdotal arguments. Do societies in Marxist nations have cleaner air? No pollution? Better safety?



And yet, you still cannot make an argument that states where laissez fair ever existed.



Where is this post complaining about regulatory oversight? You're quite the scarecrow with your massive strawmen.



You only think you know. But coming up with a coherent on-topic argument is not one of them. But hey, scarecrow, you have got strawmen and pounding your tiny insignificant little fists on the table down to a science.

Maybe when you make it to junior high school the history class will help you quite a bit. Learn some American history.

 

[Kafka]

There is no theory that is called "trickle down" in economics.

They call it "Supply Side Economics".

That was a moronic Democratic meme intended to dupe gullible dipshits like you into voting for them.

Then just mentally replace it with "Supply Side Economics".

 

[Cypress]

Of course they are. You're assuming that acting self interest is bad. It can be if that's your only interest but please let's not play pretend.

I don't think that is what Adam Smith meant by self-interest.

Does a solider who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies do it for self-interest?

You seem to want to conflate self-sacrifice with self-interest. They are not the same. That is why we have two different terms for them.

 

[Truth Detector]

Maybe when you make it to junior high school the history class will help you quite a bit. Learn some American history.

I accept your complete capitulation on the topic. Run along junior.

 

[Truth Detector]

They call it "Supply Side Economics".

That's not "trickle down" mental case. If you were formally educated, which obviously you are not, you would know this.

Then just mentally replace it with "Supply Side Economics".

Or you could pretend to have a brain and realize how stupid you look with every post.

 

[Yakuda]

I don't think that is what Adam Smith meant by self-interest.

Does a solider who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies do it for self-interest?

You seem to want to conflate self-sacrifice with self-interest. They are not the same. That is why we have two different terms for them.

No throwing oneself in a grenade is self sacrifice not self interest. If there's any conflation it appears to be from you. I do think however that throwing one at in a grenade could still be self-interest

 

[Kafka]

That's not "trickle down" mental case. If you were formally educated, which obviously you are not, you would know this.



Or you could pretend to have a brain and realize how stupid you look with every post.

Yeah. Sure.

 

[Truth Detector]

I don't think that is what Adam Smith meant by self-interest.

What do you think he meant? Source of your conclusions.....

Does a solider who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies do it for self-interest?

He does it with selfless interest only caring about his fellow comrades. Not the same as the examples you were given scarecrow. Scarecrows do love their strawmen.

You seem to want to conflate self-sacrifice with self-interest.

That would be you, strawman pontificator.

They are not the same.

Yet you attempt to conflate them and use strawmen in your ludicrous poorly thought out and uneducated arguments.

That is why we have two different terms for them.

I wish we had a different term for ignorance and stupidity. But Cypress will suffice for this thread.

 

[Truth Detector]

No throwing oneself in a grenade is self sacrifice not self interest. If there's any conflation it appears to be from you

Amusing how these leftist halfwits think they are smart.

 

[Truth Detector]

Yeah. Sure.

Yep, I am pretty sure. Sadly, you're incredibly ignorant and uneducated.

 

[Kafka]

Yep, I am pretty sure. Sadly, you're incredibly ignorant and uneducated.

SUre, the guy who knows more American history than you do is "ignorant and uneducated".

Only in the mind of a Trumpist is ignorance considered the stronger position.

 

[Cypress]

No throwing oneself in a grenade is self sacrifice not self interest. If there's any conflation it appears to be from you. I do think however that throwing one at in a grenade could still be self-interest

Adam Smith was not using the term self-interest in the way you want to use it.

Conflating self-interest, benevolence, happiness, and self-fulfillment is probably a sophistry that later 19th and 20th century philosophers engaged in.

Adam Smith was talking about self-interest in a tangible economic sense. He felt that while benevolence was admirable, in the real world most people are motivated by self-interest. And I don't think he was talking about working at the marine animal rescue sanctuary.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

On the one hand,

Smith though humans had a natural propensity to trade, most people are motivated by self-interest, excessive meddling by the government in trade was harmful, and an "invisible hand" in the market would ensure that trade benefits all parties involved - it is not a zero-sum game.

On the other hand,

Smith was not a dogmatic believer in laissez-faire economics, he believed businessmen exploited others and created monopolies, he believed the government should implement certain public works projects, provide public education, and establish certain regulations on trade.






sources used: Timothy Taylor, "Legacies of Great Economists" and Jeremy Shearmur, "Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition"

Democrat. Current Republicans want no rules at all; no "invisible hand", all laissez-faire economics and no taxes regardless of the negative impact on America's schools.

 

[Yakuda]

Adam Smith was not using the term self-interest in the way you want to use it.

Conflating self-interest, benevolence, happiness, and self-fulfillment is probably a sophistry that later 19th and 20th century philosophers engaged in.

Adam Smith was talking about self-interest in a tangible economic sense. He felt that while benevolence was admirable, in the real world most people are motivated by self-interest. And I don't think he was talking about working at the marine animal rescue sanctuary.

I'm not the one that mentioned anything about animal rescue bullshit. My position AGAIN is that EVERYONE is motivated by self interest ESPECIALLY when it comes to economics. This is why I really hate the pretending the left does that they only care about other people. Fucking hilarious