Adam Smith Wrote The Book On Capitalism?

[R_P_A_S]

So immediatly after the U.S. independence in 1776 this guy from Britan named Adam Smith who was a professor I believe in Cambridge, started to developt some sort of plan or strategy to still benefit from the old colonies(the new united states) He brought up the Idea of a "free market" so that england could countinue to get resources from the now Free U.S.A. he wrote a book called Wealth Of Nations. does this sound familiar? is this jerk the one to blame?

[power... UNLIMITED POWER!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:18 AM
So immediatly after the U.S. independence in 1776 this guy from Britan named Adam Smith who was a professor I believe in Cambridge, started to developt some sort of plan or strategy to still benefit from the old colonies(the new united states) He brought up the Idea of a \"free market\" so that england could countinue to get resources from the now Free U.S.A. he wrote a book called Wealth Of Nations. does this sound familiar? is this jerk the one to blame?
Yes he is the nemesis of Marx. But dont blame him because he merely described a system aready in place and why it was the most effective building a nations wealth. He said trade, bounties, incentive was necessary for success. It is.

He also described the rrisk/reward ratio of business, ie a smuggler gets the highest reward but takes teh ultimate risk, which is why the business owners who take the risk with their money gets the reward. Workers dont actually risk much of their money in getting to work or at work. Isnt that right?

[Fuzzy_Louster]

If you actually analyze what he advocated, Adam Smith was a welfare-statist despite his deep capitalist tendancies.

[R_P_A_S]

By the way we learned about this guy in school today. thats why I was asking.

[Dean]

Originally posted by power... UNLIMITED POWER!@Jul 15 2006, 01:47 AM
Yes he is the nemesis of Marx. But dont blame him because he merely described a system aready in place and why it was the most effective building a nations wealth. He said trade, bounties, incentive was necessary for success. It is.

He also described the rrisk/reward ratio of business, ie a smuggler gets the highest reward but takes teh ultimate risk, which is why the business owners who take the risk with their money gets the reward. Workers dont actually risk much of their money in getting to work or at work. Isnt that right?
He was hardly a nemesis of Marx; the latter in facts implicates him as a person who described a revolutionary change in history which decentralized power. Adam Smith himself argued that businessmen should be considered threats, and that we can expect that if we see one talking to another he is conniving some way to cheat the people.

[power... UNLIMITED POWER!]

Originally posted by Dean+Jul 15 2006, 02:00 AM--> (Dean @ Jul 15 2006, 02:00 AM)
power... UNLIMITED POWER!@Jul 15 2006, 01:47 AM
Yes he is the nemesis of Marx. But dont blame him because he merely described a system aready in place and why it was the most effective building a nations wealth. He said trade, bounties, incentive was necessary for success. It is.

He also described the rrisk/reward ratio of business, ie a smuggler gets the highest reward but takes teh ultimate risk, which is why the business owners who take the risk with their money gets the reward. Workers dont actually risk much of their money in getting to work or at work. Isnt that right?
He was hardly a nemesis of Marx; the latter in facts implicates him as a person who described a revolutionary change in history which decentralized power. Adam Smith himself argued that businessmen should be considered threats, and that we can expect that if we see one talking to another he is conniving some way to cheat the people. [/b]
yeah see marx inspired a world wide killing machine of epic proportion and Adam Smith showed how unregulated capitlaism makes natoins rich. Adam Smith got his ideas from reality and Marx shitted them out of his ass. Hence AdamSmithism works well and Marxism does not even exist as you guys will admit freely. The guy was in lala-land.

[Publius]

So immediatly after the U.S. independence in 1776 this guy from Britan named Adam Smith who was a professor I believe in Cambridge, started to developt some sort of plan or strategy to still benefit from the old colonies(the new united states) He brought up the Idea of a "free market" so that england could countinue to get resources from the now Free U.S.A. he wrote a book called Wealth Of Nations. does this sound familiar?

Actually, I think that's completely inaccurate.

Smith didn't write Wealth of Nations because of America at all.

And it's not a book of his opinions, it's his explanation for things were the way they were, and he was startlingly accurate.

[MKS]

I would contribute American Capitalism to Alexander Hamilton who did use Smith's writings when establisheing the national economic structre. Hamilton and his Federalist proponets established and supported the establishment of stock exchanges, banks and other systems which were the foundation of American Capitalism. His anti-federalist counterparts (Jefferson, Madison and Henry) faored an agragian based economy of trade and barter and loose government control or regulation.

Lets not forget Capitalism was considered Liberal in the 18th century since it took power away from the landed aristocracy and spread wealth and potential of wealth to a greater mass.

[Dean]

Originally posted by power... UNLIMITED POWER!@Jul 15 2006, 02:05 AM
yeah see marx inspired a world wide killing machine of epic proportion and Adam Smith showed how unregulated capitlaism makes natoins rich. Adam Smith got his ideas from reality and Marx shitted them out of his ass. Hence AdamSmithism works well and Marxism does not even exist as you guys will admit freely. The guy was in lala-land.
And that's why economists today that oppose socialism or communism are more and more turning to Marx's concepts to understand global capitalism, I assume?

[power... UNLIMITED POWER!]

Originally posted by Dean+Jul 15 2006, 02:17 AM--> (Dean @ Jul 15 2006, 02:17 AM)
power... UNLIMITED POWER!@Jul 15 2006, 02:05 AM
yeah see marx inspired a world wide killing machine of epic proportion and Adam Smith showed how unregulated capitlaism makes natoins rich. Adam Smith got his ideas from reality and Marx shitted them out of his ass. Hence AdamSmithism works well and Marxism does not even exist as you guys will admit freely. The guy was in lala-land.
And that\'s why economists today that oppose socialism or communism are more and more turning to Marx\'s concepts to understand global capitalism, I assume? [/b]
Actually economists are becomming more and more libertarian. I heard on BBC the other month that governments are realising that taxing people less actually brings in the big bucks. I mean duh you know.

Libertarian economics getting nobel prizes now too. The world is moving to capitalism and you know it!

[Dean]

Originally posted by power... UNLIMITED POWER!@Jul 15 2006, 02:32 AM
Actually economists are becomming more and more libertarian. I heard on BBC the other month that governments are realising that taxing people less actually brings in the big bucks. I mean duh you know.

Libertarian economics getting nobel prizes now too. The world is moving to capitalism and you know it!
how does that in any way refute the claim that marxist logic is being refuted? if anything, it shows that entralized forces like capitalism, which seems like somethign a marxist would say. do you even understand the argument?

[Anti-Red]

Look here, I was watching Kudlow & Company months back and Larry Kudlow revealed that polls showed most people in every place on Earth said capitalism was the wave of the future, everywhere except places like Scandinavia. Free markets are more popular than ever. You guys have lost, and you just can't admit it. You are like the rednecks down south who still wave the Confederate flag and hope that one day maybe the precious Confederacy will rise up again, but yet again it does not happen. So put down your books and flags and step up to reality.

[Zingu]

Of course its not anti-thetical to Marxism.

David Ricardo built his economics off Adam Smith, and Karl Marx built his economics off David Ricardo (edit, sorry, repeated myself).

Adam Smith did a fairly good job in analyzing the new economic trends and their accompaning freedoms in his respective historical epoch. Of course when it came to Smith vs. Ricardo, Smith was wrong about where the source of all value actually came from.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:07 AM

So immediatly after the U.S. independence in 1776 this guy from Britan named Adam Smith who was a professor I believe in Cambridge, started to developt some sort of plan or strategy to still benefit from the old colonies(the new united states) He brought up the Idea of a "free market" so that england could countinue to get resources from the now Free U.S.A. he wrote a book called Wealth Of Nations. does this sound familiar?

Actually, I think that's completely inaccurate.

Smith didn't write Wealth of Nations because of America at all.

And it's not a book of his opinions, it's his explanation for things were the way they were, and he was startlingly accurate.
oh yeah? well like I said or maybe i left out. this is what some guy in my class said. after Adam Smith's name was brought up during lecture. interesting how much of this man you guys know. why is he not mention amongst the capitalist founding fathers or whatever?

[MKS]

why is he not mention amongst the capitalist founding fathers or whatever?

He is often mentioned as one of the "founders" of Capitalist theory; he can be compared to Marx in a way. But unlike Marx he actually contributed to a greater freedom of the masses. Marx only contributed (indirectly) to the establishment of some of the greatest tyrannies of modern history and directly authored one of the most erroneous examinations and assumptions of socio-economic theory.

I know it is sacrilege on this forum to equate Capitalism with the progression of Liberty, but it did provide a greater access to wealth and resources than feudalism of mercantilism ever did. The "free markets" allowed for a "free people" to thrive and establish free nations, which when compared to the serfdom of the feudal age and the rigid class structure of the mercantilist model, are almost Libertarian Utopias.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 15 2006, 02:44 AM
Look here, I was watching Kudlow & Company months back and Larry Kudlow revealed that polls showed most people in every place on Earth said capitalism was the wave of the future, everywhere except places like Scandinavia. Free markets are more popular than ever. You guys have lost, and you just can't admit it. You are like the rednecks down south who still wave the Confederate flag and hope that one day maybe the precious Confederacy will rise up again, but yet again it does not happen. So put down your books and flags and step up to reality.
right, more defeatism. That has again nothing to do with my argument that Marx's theories were being more accepted amongst prominent economists. That limited capitalism is more common nowadays or that people support it as the future has nothing at all to do with my claim! His theories of centralization of economic power and how they are centralized are being respected more and more, because people are realizing that his political activism was not the cause of his studies, but a symptom of them.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 03:35 AM
Marx only contributed (indirectly) to the establishment of some of the greatest tyrannies of modern history and directly authored one of the most erroneous examinations and assumptions of socio-economic theory.
marx's contributions can't be said to have been more than being a post-mortum posterboy for a regime that implimented none of marx's few proposals for a messianistic socialism. snce his theories on socialist liberation are not all shared by me, I can't really comment on those.