The Bog of Eternal Stench

CowpokeU said:
But Smith would and that's what I'm always fixated on. I hate land lords and land speculators. I always assumed it was a product of capitalism until I read Smith and realized he had a huge hatred of that same very thing. He equates them to creatures who reap what they never sow.

Also, what do you make of this? Smith was very adamant about concentrations of wealth hindering the labourer and creating unequitable and unjust societies in his book "Wealth of Nations." It's also a backing force in my hatred of Bezos and other multi billionaires. It comes directly from Smith himself.

"profits should be low and labor wages high, legislation in favor of the worker is “always just and equitable,” land should be distributed widely and evenly, inheritance laws should partition fortunes, taxation can be high if it is equitable, and the science of the legislator is necessary to thwart rentiers and manipulators."
Click to expand...
And this is why Smith should be considered, rather than the father of capitalism, more accurately one of its uncles. And most of that can be attributed to the difference in life (cultural, economic, government and religious) over the past 250 years.

As you said in #6 above, feudalism was still heavily practiced in Smith's time. (Smith actually coined the terms feudal government and feudal system in Wealth of Nations.) The concept of a land lord was much different in Smith's time than it is today. Most land lords and speculators are not Grant Cardone, but rather small businesses and private individuals, not lords and barrons.

BamaKlingon is right, much of Smith today can be looked at as Socialistic, especially his views on private ownership of land - specifically because of the differences between then and now.

“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property...the landlords…love to reap where they have never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come…to have an additional price fixed upon them.”

You, as a Native American, I can see your attraction to that. As Chief Joseph said "To say that man can own the land defies the laws of nature". That's a common tenet of Natives (although many saw their rights to resources on that land as exclusive to their tribe, but that's another story). But there's no denying that Smith's words there ring similarly in your ears as Marx's might.

In my opinion, Smith's greatest contribution was in identifying the invisible hand - the culmination of numerous market forces engaged in freedom of production, consumption and pursuit of self interest - free from coersion of force of government. This concept has led to the greatest production of wealth, across all of free societies, in human history.
 
Nod4Eight said:
And this is why Smith should be considered, rather than the father of capitalism, more accurately one of its uncles. And most of that can be attributed to the difference in life (cultural, economic, government and religious) over the past 250 years.

As you said in #6 above, feudalism was still heavily practiced in Smith's time. (Smith actually coined the terms feudal government and feudal system in Wealth of Nations.) The concept of a land lord was much different in Smith's time than it is today. Most land lords and speculators are not Grant Cardone, but rather small businesses and private individuals, not lords and barrons.

BamaKlingon is right, much of Smith today can be looked at as Socialistic, especially his views on private ownership of land - specifically because of the differences between then and now.

“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property...the landlords…love to reap where they have never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come…to have an additional price fixed upon them.”

You, as a Native American, I can see your attraction to that. As Chief Joseph said "To say that man can own the land defies the laws of nature". That's a common tenet of Natives (although many saw their rights to resources on that land as exclusive to their tribe, but that's another story). But there's no denying that Smith's words there ring similarly in your ears as Marx's might.

In my opinion, Smith's greatest contribution was in identifying the invisible hand - the culmination of numerous market forces engaged in freedom of production, consumption and pursuit of self interest - free from coersion of force of government. This concept has led to the greatest production of wealth, across all of free societies, in human history.
Click to expand...
//pursuit of self interest\\ With a sense of responsibility.

//free from coersion of force of government\\ Oh boy. That could cause this thread to blow up because of differing attitudes/feelings. But, basically, government stay the eff out of people's way.
 
Nod4Eight said:
And this is why Smith should be considered, rather than the father of capitalism, more accurately one of its uncles. And most of that can be attributed to the difference in life (cultural, economic, government and religious) over the past 250 years.

As you said in #6 above, feudalism was still heavily practiced in Smith's time. (Smith actually coined the terms feudal government and feudal system in Wealth of Nations.) The concept of a land lord was much different in Smith's time than it is today. Most land lords and speculators are not Grant Cardone, but rather small businesses and private individuals, not lords and barrons.

BamaKlingon is right, much of Smith today can be looked at as Socialistic, especially his views on private ownership of land - specifically because of the differences between then and now.

“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property...the landlords…love to reap where they have never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come…to have an additional price fixed upon them.”

You, as a Native American, I can see your attraction to that. As Chief Joseph said "To say that man can own the land defies the laws of nature". That's a common tenet of Natives (although many saw their rights to resources on that land as exclusive to their tribe, but that's another story). But there's no denying that Smith's words there ring similarly in your ears as Marx's might.

In my opinion, Smith's greatest contribution was in identifying the invisible hand - the culmination of numerous market forces engaged in freedom of production, consumption and pursuit of self interest - free from coersion of force of government. This concept has led to the greatest production of wealth, across all of free societies, in human history.
Click to expand...
No one should have to give a "rent" on property that they own. Once it's purchased.
Anytime you reap what you did not sow, getting a free piece of the action, you are assuming power.
 
www.yahoo.com

WHO Members Reject Trump's Demands but Agree to Study Its Virus Response

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump's angry demands for punitive action against the World Health Organization were rebuffed on Tuesday by the organization's other member nations, which decided instead to conduct an "impartial, independent" examination of the WHO's response to the
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

The hell with the rest of the world and these stuffed suit hot air gasbag beauracrats.
 
Nod4Eight said:
And this is why Smith should be considered, rather than the father of capitalism, more accurately one of its uncles. And most of that can be attributed to the difference in life (cultural, economic, government and religious) over the past 250 years.

As you said in #6 above, feudalism was still heavily practiced in Smith's time. (Smith actually coined the terms feudal government and feudal system in Wealth of Nations.) The concept of a land lord was much different in Smith's time than it is today. Most land lords and speculators are not Grant Cardone, but rather small businesses and private individuals, not lords and barrons.

BamaKlingon is right, much of Smith today can be looked at as Socialistic, especially his views on private ownership of land - specifically because of the differences between then and now.

“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property...the landlords…love to reap where they have never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come…to have an additional price fixed upon them.”

You, as a Native American, I can see your attraction to that. As Chief Joseph said "To say that man can own the land defies the laws of nature". That's a common tenet of Natives (although many saw their rights to resources on that land as exclusive to their tribe, but that's another story). But there's no denying that Smith's words there ring similarly in your ears as Marx's might.

In my opinion, Smith's greatest contribution was in identifying the invisible hand - the culmination of numerous market forces engaged in freedom of production, consumption and pursuit of self interest - free from coersion of force of government. This concept has led to the greatest production of wealth, across all of free societies, in human history.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that Smith in writing seems very socialistic in nature but that's because in my opinion and again with the workings of the time, Smith understood the gradual and extreme differences between the common good of the people and the common good of the market which were both inclusive and exclusive of one another.

I'm also a huge believer in lack of singular land ownership and more along the lines of a reservation or CoOp status wherein the land is there to be worked by those with the initiative to work said land. Smith also noted that in his writings which also echos Marx that equitable societies are both pragmatic and necessary but that does not mean that there is equitability between people who just do enough versus people who go out and do more and therefore the fruits of their labor are always different.

I firmly believe that in order for Capitalism or Socialism to work they must abide by the equitable station but also rewarding harder or more dedicated work for the people as well. I also believe middle men do not belong in work. The need for boards and CEO's aren't necessary to me.
 
CowpokeU said:
I'll agree that Smith in writing seems very socialistic in nature but that's because in my opinion and again with the workings of the time, Smith understood the gradual and extreme differences between the common good of the people and the common good of the market which were both inclusive and exclusive of one another.

I'm also a huge believer in lack of singular land ownership and more along the lines of a reservation or CoOp status wherein the land is there to be worked by those with the initiative to work said land. Smith also noted that in his writings which also echos Marx that equitable societies are both pragmatic and necessary but that does not mean that there is equitability between people who just do enough versus people who go out and do more and therefore the fruits of their labor are always different.

I firmly believe that in order for Capitalism or Socialism to work they must abide by the equitable station but also rewarding harder or more dedicated work for the people as well. I also believe middle men do not belong in work. The need for boards and CEO's aren't necessary to me.
Click to expand...
The down side to that Co-op, reservation type thing is the workers. Too many will only do the minimum sowing, and expect maximum reapage.
That is a big breakdown. Doers, will tire of extra for the non-doers.
That has to be addressed.
 
Bamaklingon said:
The down side to that Co-op, reservation type thing is the workers. Too many will only do the minimum sowing, and expect maximum reapage.
That is a big breakdown. Doers, will tire of extra for the non-doers.
That has to be addressed.
Click to expand...

The best opportunity to address that is during complete unregulated chaos. Any time we have a "structured and regulated" society, the "takers" will always be supported by "regulations". Bleeding hearts in positions of power won't allow for the discarded death of those that have no redeeming value.
 
Bamaklingon said:
The down side to that Co-op, reservation type thing is the workers. Too many will only do the minimum sowing, and expect maximum reapage.
That is a big breakdown. Doers, will tire of extra for the non-doers.
That has to be addressed.
Click to expand...

But that is, I stated it above. Both Smith and Marx stated that those who do the minimum will be able to live and survive on their minimum effort however those that do more and expend more will be rewarded by the fruits of their labor.

Smith and Marx both stated that different work, more effort etc will be rewarded but their social structures also go along to state those who do less or work in a lesser position will still have their needs met. Marx stated that "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs." That statement is quantified by those who do more will be rewarded more.

So in turn that's how CoOp's work in this situation and here on the reservation as well
 
CowpokeU said:
But that is, I stated it above. Both Smith and Marx stated that those who do the minimum will be able to live and survive on their minimum effort however those that do more and expend more will be rewarded by the fruits of their labor.

Smith and Marx both stated that different work, more effort etc will be rewarded but their social structures also go along to state those who do less or work in a lesser position will still have their needs met. Marx stated that "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs." That statement is quantified by those who do more will be rewarded more.

So in turn that's how CoOp's work in this situation and here on the reservation as well
Click to expand...


How do you feel about those that do absolutely nothing but stick their hand out, though. Those folks, IMO, have no redeeming value and deserve to be discarded from the gene pool.

How do Smith and Marx deal with them?
 
OldDevilDawg said:
How do you feel about those that do absolutely nothing but stick their hand out, though. Those folks, IMO, have no redeeming value and deserve to be discarded from the gene pool.

How do Smith and Marx deal with them?
Click to expand...

Both of them handled things effectively but also vaguely as in their time "vagabonds" had their own unique society and usually were roamers. Those who could, worked, those who couldn't like the ill, unable, etc were set up with social structures much like we have today.

I've not really met anyone who just puts their hand out and does nothing, at least not for long periods.

I honestly don't know how to address that as they didn't really much either. It's a catch 22. Do we completely push them out of society which has been typical of both capitalist and socialist structures OR do we try and rehabilitate them in a way we do prisoners but in a job corps kind of sense?

If it were me, I'd attempt the latter but if unsuccessful I'd go with the tried and true former.
 
CowpokeU said:
Both of them handled things effectively but also vaguely as in their time "vagabonds" had their own unique society and usually were roamers. Those who could, worked, those who couldn't like the ill, unable, etc were set up with social structures much like we have today.

I've not really met anyone who just puts their hand out and does nothing, at least not for long periods.

I honestly don't know how to address that as they didn't really much either. It's a catch 22. Do we completely push them out of society which has been typical of both capitalist and socialist structures OR do we try and rehabilitate them in a way we do prisoners but in a job corps kind of sense?

If it were me, I'd attempt the latter but if unsuccessful I'd go with the tried and true former.
Click to expand...


I know a number of those. They've been living off a gubmint handout for a couple of generations. Manipulating the system and sitting on their ass the whole time.

I say let me keep my damn money and let the useless fucks starve.
 
OldDevilDawg said:
I know a number of those. They've been living off a gubmint handout for a couple of generations. Manipulating the system and sitting on their ass the whole time.

I say let me keep my damn money and let the useless fucks starve.
Click to expand...

I know several as well.

I could go on and on about them but I expect you already heard what I would be saying.
 
Nod4Eight said:
That's the downfall of any commune system.
Click to expand...

We've perfected it on the reservation. Everyone puts in on the huge plots of farm land. If you don't work it or under work it, you lose out on getting it the next growing season. If you work it hard, you get more land to work it with and the tribe buys your excess produce to use in the nursing home, children's home, school and casino.

It works, or it does for us because we still have that old school mentality. I'm not sure which is the reason honestly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top