In case you don't know who this is, his name is Adam Smith - still don't have a clue? Neither did I. He was a Scottish moral philosopher and a pioneer of the political economy (whatever that means but it sounds good) that lived towards the end of the 1700's. Since I've been feeling somewhat outclassed in the quotes from the founding father's department, I found a a good one from Mr. Smith on the blogsite, ThinkingorSitting, that I found interesting.
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
-
Sounds like Obama wasn't the first to want to 'spread the dreaded wealth'.... Hmm.
Also from a post on that site, a dcmagoo, no relation to a mrmagoo, offered up a statistic containing some interesting breakdowns of exit polls. Those who reported an income of over $200,000 (basically those who will pay more under Obama's intended tax plan) voted for him 52-48. Apparently, those who make the money aren't as worried about paying a bit more in taxes as those who wish they made that much money.
Ka-ching.
35 comments:
There are many quotes from socialist philosophers from all different time periods and countries that you could quote that sound an awful lot like Qbama but OUR country was not founded upon those principles. It was founded on pinciples of freedom. I agree with rich being responsible for the care of those less fortunate but again....that would be done through churches, charities and be given of their own free will, not mandated by a government. This system has never proven to be effective. If you were really really rich and had your choice to reasearch and give to the best outlet for you money to be most helpful and effective would you really find the IRS to be that outlet. Would you really think that the government was making the best use of your money. No it never is.
I read that Adam Smith was one of the greatest thinkers of that age, friends with Ben Franklin even. The men that put together our constitution were men just like him. Moral men, philosophical men. Men trying to make a difference. Was the term 'the dreaded Socialist' even a word then?
Has this other system you suggest proven to be effective somehow? Give me an example of it, because it sounds like an unrealistic theory to me. When given a choice, do you think ALL rich people will give of their own free will? Do they do so now? Ah, no, they don't. We will be thrown back to the horrendous class periods of old Europe or the current one in India. Do you realistically believe we can end all social programs and that no one will suffer because of it? Are you thinking of everyone collectively as a whole, as a world community, or just you and yours. Because that's what it sounds like to me.
And if rich people are so against the government taking their money then why did the majority of them vote for Obama? Or for any other Democratic president for that matter.
Karl Marx is also considered one of the greatest thinkers of his age. I am sure this man was also a great thinker and philosopher but it is just a matter of WHAT philosophy. Great ideas that over and over when instituted have failed. I don't think they weren't moral nor do I think that Obama isn't moral. I believe that he really believes that he can make the country better. I am sure he is a good man and maybe he will make a difference.
I believe that the founding fathers were men but they were divinely guided to founded this country on principles of freedom. Yes this system has proven to be effective, the example is AMERICA. Have we strayed from the principles that our country was founded on? Yes, BOTH parties. The demise of this country's founding principles has been prophesied so we know it will happen. I believe it is a slow process and it has been moving there over the past many years.
No rich people will not all give of their own free will. Just as we all won't do the right thing always but that is what freedom is about. Not forcing people to do the right thing. I believe in people and that they are innately good and will do the right thing. That is not meaning ALL people just many and many is enough.
No I am not just thinking of me and mine. I find that often when I talk with liberals I am accused of being intolerant, selfish, concerned only about myself and my prosperity. It is so easy to do that just the way it is easy to call those against prop 8 intolerant bigots. These principles that I and many conservative espouse are always the target of these claims yet conservatives are the most generous. I don't know how to make you believe any different.
I don't think all social programs should be done away. I just have faith in the human spirit and goodness that is how this country was founded and though inperfect I have seen nothing yet that rivals it.
The Catholic church came out a few years ago and said that they could not feed and take care of all the poor that were coming to them- that they NEEDED government help to take care of the poor. They begged government not to take that help away. I agree that we need a better welfare system because SOME people abuse the system. But, we can't take it completely away because MANY people desperately need it, and the churches CAN NOT handle that case load.
The problem with going to a "donate what you want" system is that the middle-class by far donates more money %-wise based on income then the rich. Most rich people do not donate very much. Maybe they feel like they don't need to because they do pay higher taxes (a system which has ALWAYS been set up this way), but it is a fact that they are not as charitable as the middle-class. If we didn't have taxes to help the poor, the middle class would be paying for all of the services needed.
Also, I would like you all to consider that these moneys are not simply going to the poor. They are going to families of speicial needs children who can not afford the care their children need. The family I told you about earlier with the child who now has brain damage- once they leave the hospital, their insurance will not pay for the therapy the baby will need throughout their life. These people make 6 figures, and they have to rely on Medicaid to at least help cover these expenses, otherwise they would go completely bankrupt trying to take care of their child. I am totally ok with paying a little more in taxes to help them out. They need that money at this particular time much more then I do, and I pray that I will never be in that situation.
Christina, I agree with you in some ways. I don't think we need to do away with ALL social programs I just worry when they are constently expanded and not fixed when they are working so so badly. I worry when taxes are consistantly rising and I watch the government manage that money in such an irresponsible way, and I worry when I hear our president elect talk about things not being fair so we need to spread the wealth around (socialistic principle). This country was founded on the principle of LIMITED government, freedom and people given the opportunity to pursue their dreams. I do not like seeing the government constantly expanding. We could find a million ways for government to get involved to help people, it is endless but we should be very very wary of all this expansion.
I have will be gone all day so I wont be able to respond any more today....I pass the torch to Jen and Okbushman.
I've been BUSY ladies, and I feel out of the loop!
I have a thought. Since it seems only members are in on this particular discussion, I would like to bring it to the table. We have been taught about the Law of Consecration. This law is in essence giving everything we have and then the Lord will do what he feels best with it (redistribution of wealth). Ok, so my GUESS is that Lula and Christina are more of the opinion that we need to be doing things that look closer to that law....if I am speaking out of line, I apologize, but many democrat mormons that I talk to refer to this--but we call it socialism or at least the allowance of social programs. We are also taught through scripture and prophecy that we are to take care of the sick and afflicted, the poor and the needy. We are really really GOOD at this as members. We are taught properly and we know that if we want to live with HF again then we need to do these things. These are done by our own free will and choice, not by mandates. My opinion is that we do not have righteous men who can properly administer such ideas that look like the Law of Consecration. These ideas are not for our time, these ideas are to be administered when the Lord comes. The reason I say that is because we also know, that as members of the church, through prophecy, that the Constitution was a divinely inspired document. I intrepret this as meaning, we should be following the constitution as closely as possible until the Lord comes. If you understand and read the constituion, it talks of liberty and freedoms....sounds a lot like agency. When we start altering the very foundation that this great country has been founded upon, then I think we tamper with the very document that the Lord intened us to live by. Lula, you refer to ALL rich people, unfortunately these men and women do not have the proper perspective to give of themselves FREELY. Does this mean that we mandate them to do so? They will be held accountable for their selfish choices. I refer to Gale when she mentioned that there are prophecys of the demise of this country and that the constitution will hang by a thread. If the constitution is an inspired document and the constituion talks of freedom, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then how can we even justify inacting ideas that are not inline with this inspired document.
I have SOOO much more to day, and I don't think that my ideas are as clear as I would like for them to be. I'd like to hear comments on this and when I get back from the doctor (4 mo. pregnant and fell hard down the steps--I'm an iddiot) then I will try to clairfy. I just wanted to get the discussion going.
P.S. Christina, just because the Cathloic church wants it, doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. There are other options
Great discussion, and I'm sorry Lula and Christina but I must say
GO BRAY!!
If Bill Gates would just give me $1million of his bajillion dollars, my life would be so much easier. Do you think Obama will get him to do that? Seriously though, I was a little enticed by Obama's promises to the middle class of which I consider myself a part. Am I really going to see a benefit for myself? I don't qualify for any of those charities but I truly do NEED some more money, so what benefit will I see from his promises? This is a real question Lula, so don't think I'm kidding.
Jen, you say it is taking away their free agency if you tax the rich. Using that logic, couldn't you say by taking away the option of abortion you are taking away women's free agency? And that they "will be held accountable for their selfish choices?" Or gay marriage, aren't we taking away their free agency to choose (I am against both, just playing devil's advocate here).
Hmmm...lots of things to say.
I agree that we do not have leaders who can lead as Christ will. I would also say we do not have followers who would follow now as they will then. I would venture to say that if this Sunday our bishops told us all that because of the recession we all need to give all of our food to the bishop so they can ration it to the members, most of us would be unwilling to do so- or at least if we did it, it would be begrudgingly. Yes, we would be willing to give much of our food, but I know it would be hard for me to give ALL of our food. That is why the Law of Consecration failed in the 1800's. So, yes, we do not have the leaders, but we also do not have the willingness of heart that we will need at that time.
But, I guess the real debate is about big vs. small government. Certainly, nobody wants the government telling them what to wear, etc (although I am totally in favor of school uniforms...another issue entirely!). Anyway, while I realize this is often a Rep vs. Dem debate, it is ironic to me that Bush has made the biggest govt of all time. He instituted the Patriot Act, the greatest threat to the Constitution AND our freedoms of any president, has run up our deficit, and dozens of other things. Now, I do understand that Bush does not symbolize Rep values like Raegon did. I would say Bush hurt the Reb party more then anything else, though I am sure some of you would argue. However, it is BUSH who has been our biggest threat, not Obama, in regards to big govt, so to say that Obama is going to create the biggest govt is simply unfair and inaccurate. His quote about spreading the wealth was taken COMPLETELY out of context. All he wants to do is roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy to the same levels they were when Clinton was in power- back when our nation had a slurplus, not a deficit.
We are talking about freedoms, but I would say the rich are the freest people in our country- able to whatever they want whenever they want, while the poor are the ones with little choices. They don't get to choose where to go to school, yet alone college- if they are even able. They often do not get to choose their occupation. If you are born poor, it is very difficult to get yourself out. Not impossible, obviously there are several examples of rising above poverty, including Obama. I am just saying that it is hard, and often assistance is needed- and sometimes that is in the form of government help. Hopefully, people will take the govt help for a little bit, and then make the adjustments to get on a brighter path- but it is hard, much harder then those of us who were lucky enough to be born into white middle-class families.
Honestly, though, I did grow up poor. Not poor enough to be on govt subsidies, but poor enough that my dad had to work three jobs at times, that we rarely got new clothes, and eating at Burger King was a luxury. Thankfully, my parents valued education, and I was able to go to college- working as a janitor cleaning toilets to pay for my education. (I am still amazed that I can go to the store and buy a pair of jeans and not worry about breaking the bank!). I learned the value of hard work, and I am forever grateful for that. I believe that most people do not want govt hand-outs. I know my parents thought that was a great shame. Unfortunately, there are some who abuse the system, but I do believe that most do not. It is my opinion that the Paris Hilton's of the world will not suffer too much by the 2% tax he wants to reinstitute on the wealthy (not a new tax, just taking away the current tax breaks-which, McCain was origianlly opposed to these tax breaks as well). I am guessing Paris will still be able to choose where she goes on vacation, what stores she shops at, where she eats, etc. Poor people do not have the luxury of choice- their lack of money determines their lack of choice.
I do think we all agree on this issue: too many people abuse the system, but we have to have the system for those who are not abusing it.
Our country right now is in massive debt- which means we are in "bondage" as the prophets would say. The only way to get out of that is to completely slash programs or raise taxes. I think we have to do both- even McCain was going to raise taxes (on our health care). It is hard for me to feel too sorry for the rich with thier golden parachutes and 50-foot yachts. Sorry.
Socialism or marxism in theory is a beautiful idea. Humanity without greed and power is also a beautiful idea. But both have never been fully realized. Because when you give too much power to one man, one group, or one government, it corrupts itself. When you take more and more from the rich (or big companies) in taxes, they have less to invest in growth, new products, new employees. I would love to know of anyone who has been employed by a poor man? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Didn't think so. I hate to say it, but we need wealthy innovators. We need rich entrepreneurs to keep our country's industry competitive. Damn those rich guys for providing my husband with a job. Damn them for not giving more to the government to effectively spread the wealth. Damn them for keeping it and investing it in people, ideas, and products...which helps my pocketbook more than if I got it from the govt. (I'm slipping to the dark side...slowly)
Do you know who employs my husband? The government!
Oh, yeah- and Jen- get better! No more falling down the stairs!!!!
One more point- sorry, I actually just turned my computer off and then remembered:
My dad (who was once that poor guy I mentioned earlier) is a business owner. He employs about 20 people, providing benefits and salaries- and he is NO WHERE NEAR the $250,000 a year mark- he will not be affected by the taxes, even though he provides jobs. So, some people do work for average Joes (no, my dad is not a plumber!).
Don't 70% of Americans work for small businesses? I might be wrong on that, but I thought I heard that...
I got a Bushman to curse! Our job is done. I can't wait to tell your sister-in-law...
I don't know why we are talking about this if the end of days is right around the corner.
How about everyone just pay their fair share ladies, as far as taxes go, in proportion to their income. Ronald Reagan gave a tax cut to everybody but the middle class all under the guise of promoting growth. I call that promoting big business. And while it may help a alittle, is that really the only reason they can come up with to cut taxes on the wealthy? Yes, I know those richies are definitely having a hard time staying in their homes, paying for health insurance, paying the bills on time with all those pesky assistants.
My point is, the success of the middle class drives this economy just as much as putting more money into the pockets of rich businessmen does. Just look at how the mortgage crisis has now brought on a world wide recession.
(I would throw off an expletive here, but I'm not one of those evil conservative's that curses all the time.:))
I would just like to see some progress made somewhere. Enough with all the talking points. Compromises need to be made or NOTHING will get done, and meanwhile the gap widens.
Wow, there is so much to comment on. For all of those who were worried (thanks Christina), all is well....
Mandy, taxing the rich isn't constituional and neither is death to babies. The only place for arguement there is whether or not you believe that abortion is a "choice" or if abortion is murder. Satan is clever and has woven into our minds the question as to when life begins. I stand with the constitution and the 14th Ammendment that says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life" we can conclude that murder is not constitutional. While people do have choices, they will be held accountable for them regarding the abortion issue also. All we can do is stand up for what we believe in. This belief can be backed up by the divinely inspired constitution.
Christina, your confidence in the govt is much greater than mine. I think that is what it boils down to. You think that the govt will help people. I think that the govt is wasteful. Ben works for the govt. but isn't he a contractor? Can you imagine if the govt built all the planes and weapons for the defence on their own, the massive amounts of waste and red tape that they would encounter. When the govt uses our money (don't forget that it is our money first, it's not their money and they let us have a little bit of it)to protect us and uses outside contractors, they money is spent more efficiently. So yes, it is an arugement of big govt vs. small govt. It is also an arguement of govt programs vs. govt outsourcing. Don't get me wrong, the govt. outsourced programs need to be closely watched because corporations also have corruption and waste, just not at the same level as the govt.
Also, you mention that the Paris' of the world would not suffer. You're probably right. But, is taxing her actually helping the poor? I just don't buy into the arguement that we are helping people be more self-reliant through the MASSIVE welfare program that we have. I HOENSTLY belive that the reason for the big income gap between the rich and the poor is because we are allowing people, GENERATIONS, to live on welfare. I can't even believe for 1 second that in a family where there are 6 generations of pepole on welfare, that not ONE of them is capable of making a good life for themselves. If our program really helped people out of their circumstances, then it would make sense for it to be there. But I believe it enables more than it helps, thus increasing the gap. I have an example of how the system is being taken advantage of. I have a friend (Christina, you know her but i am going to leave her name out of it) who was given the opportunity to work from home making over 50,000 per year when she had her first baby. Her husband was in school and not making any money at the time. Instead of taking the opportunity to juggle being a first time mom and working from home, she chose to reject the position and to live on welfare. This is REDICULOUS! She is intelligent, with a college education and had the means to provide for her family. I have seen this over and over again. Has anyone on this blog lived in BYU housing. It is WRONG the number of completely capable people who have children and decide that staying at home with them and milking the govt is a better option than trying to make schedules work so that one can be in school while the other works so they can provide for themselves. They don't have a diability, they don't have true hardships. AND, their excuse is that when they finish school (actually said to me by a person studying Law) that they will pay the govt. back 10 x's over in taxes. Does that somehow make it right to take MY hard earned money because it is more convenient for you and your completely capable family. Are we really helping the needy? Are we truly teaching people to take care of themselves? It goes back to the teach a man to fish anaolgy. YES, people need help, but I don't think that they are truly being helped through handouts. Even in the church they have limits as to how much they will help and they are being monitored.
You were right when you said that Bush didn't hold the values of Reagan Republicans. But it isn't fair to say that Obama hasn't created a larger govt. He isn't President yet, I default to Okbushmans...we will see. All I know is that his ideas are socialist and the spread the wealth around comment was not at all blown out of porportion. He not only wants to go back to Clintons tax plan, but the part that is BAD is that he wants to redistribute the wealth to income earners who aren't even paying taxes. It's the latter of the two that frightens me. AND, he said that he knew that it wasn't good for the economy, but it was "the right thing to do". Is it the right thing to do to MANDATE such wealth redistributions? Where is our agency going? The very principles of the divinely inspired Constituion are being challenged.
I'm confused, did God write the Constitution? When I call something divinely inspired, I think of the ten commandments, the scriptures, etc. The Constitution is not a religious document, last time I checked. It is not infallible. I've seen it. It's just paper and ink, written by good but imperfect, slaveholding, womanizing, cursing, men.
(You may utter more curse words now.)
One more point. Christina keeps referring to how the Bush admin keeps expanding govt and it has been the largest govt. expansion in history. Well, let me ask, has that been good for our country? NO! I don't care what the reason for the expansion of govt (welfare, war, technology, energy, bailouts etc.) it has caused our country to suffer. If dems are generally for larger govt. and reps are SUPPOSE to be for smaller govt. then we have just shown how govt expansion is harmful.
D&C 101: 77,80
77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the brights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.
P.S. Search (LDS.org) Ezra Taft Benson and Constituion and also J. Reuben Clark and the Constituion. You might be surprised as to what you find.
Also, are these men (our founding fathers), who revealed themselve in the St. George temple to Wilford Woodruf and asked for their work to be done so evil?
Jen, huh? I don't get your response to me. I DON'T agree with abortion, I thought I said that. I don't need a lecture on it again. Preaching to the choir... All I was saying was that I thought your argument that taxing the rich takes away their free agency because they can't make their own decision if they want to donate to charity isn't a legit argument. It really had nothing to do with abortion. I was using that as an example.
Mandy, I apologize. I am aware of your person views on abortion. My son unplugged the computer and I had to rewrite my original response. When I originally wrote it I said, Mandy (AKA Devil's Advocate) and was putting the response not to you but to the Devil's Advocate you were playing. I am sorry I overlooked that during the rewrite.
I do think there needs to be an overhaul of the welfare program- I am in complete agreement with you on that, Jen. I'm just saying that there are some people who are using it correctly (and not just so they can be stay-at-home moms--I'm glad I don't know who it is you are talking about, because like I said earlier- I would be totally ashamed if I needed govt assistance, and I would do everything I could to avoid it!)
I guess I just don't know what the solution is. I like bridges that don't collapse. I like good quality schools. I like policemen and firemen. I hate red tape as much as the next person. I actually don't like paying taxes- I have yet to meet anybody who does. But, I am willing to pay taxes if it provides for the protection and health of my family, and is also able to help those who need it- not those who abuse it. I don't have any answers...I just hope that we can start to get out of this national debt, eliminate wasteful spending, but still keep the good spending that will benefit society as a whole!
Here's an interesting article about Obama and lobbyists:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27665871
We'll see if this helps clean up govt!
Your son does that too huh? Isn't it great!
Christina, I do have a welfare success story. I have a friend who was in a highly abusive relationship. The abuse didn't start until after she was married and pregnant with her daughter. When she was 6 months pregnant she decided it was time to be strong and leave her situation. She had NOTHING and NOWHERE to go. She moved to Colorado and went on welfare. She lived in section A housing and then put herself through beauty school to become a hair dresser. As soon as she was graduated and in a steady job she was off the system. She is a very successful business woman now. I know that there are people who NEED the system and who use the system properly. I wish I heard more stories like hers.
I will read the article about Obama, however, I have to say I am very skeptical of anything that is published by MSNBC. Of all the alphabet channels, they openly promoted their support for Obama during the election. They are higly leftist and so I don't trust their objectivity. Having said that, I will try try try to read it with an open mind.
I'm well aware of what's in the D&C, and I guess I need to rephrase. I agree that the Spirit of God has inspired many men and women throughout time. For example, the writers of the Constitution (which by the way, they were wise, but not perfect, i.e. Jefferson's girlfriend Hemmings, Franklin's known womanizing, it is well documented that most talked and drank like sailors, with my exception of John Adams of whom I am related, I'll say he's perfect.), the lab assistant who forgot to throw away the petri dish and thereby discovered penicillin, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, etc., etc.
My underlying point was, I don't understand a Constitutionalist's way of thinking I guess. I don't consider that document holy writ. It seems extreme to me, talking about it with such reverence. I actually relate more with The Bill of Rights. Funny how no one ever mentions that document.
Do you sit up at night and read it over and over? Because I can suggest something infinitely more interesting to read at night that's alot more fun.
Mainly I'm just jerking your chain here. You know how we like to "jerk people around on this site."
Bradford, besides scoring one for the Earth so your children and grandchildren can enjoy a clean, happy environment in the years to come, and hopefully taking a few more illegal guns off the street thereby making them safer to walk near, you can probably expect a little less tax taken from your husband's check in the coming years. I did a post about the middle of October, What you will pay in taxes. Check it out to see the savings that might happen. Who know's now though. We might see very little change in that regard.
And yes, I know the Bill of Rights in technically part of the Constitution in that it is the first 10 Amendments. But still all by itself, a separate document. I, a Democrat, seem to relate more to that specific piece of paper. That and the phrase "We the People."
Well Lula, I think of it more as a holy docuement than you do. Elder Packer spoke of it as recently as General Conerence in his talk entitled "The Test" on Sunday Afternoon. We also KNOW that it was prophecied of before it was even written. We also KNOW that it was necessary for it to be written so the church could be established on this land in this last and final dispensation. And when the Lord states "I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men" (note the word "I"), I apparantly take the document and the men who wrote the document a bit more seriously than you do. I didn't just wake up one morning and say "Hey, I think I want to have a testimony of the Constitution." It was through much study and reading from our Prophets and the testimonies they gave that I later gained a testimony of my own.
Do I sit and pour over it, no. But I have read many teachings from our prophets regarding it and heard them testify of the divinity of it over and over again. I have also read about our founding fathers. By the way, Jefferson was a founding father but did not participate in writing the constitution. And if all you know about him is a supposed affair with Sally Hemmings, then I strongly encourage you to study his life and thinking. And yes, Franklin was a major flirt, but according to a recent biography of him, there is no evidence of illicit relations. I would strongly encourage you to study about Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin, then form your opinions about them. Don't just go by what you heard in the public education system. In order for you to gain a better understanding of the constitution, I would highly recommend you read "The Five-Thousand Year Leap".
And FYI The Bill of Rights is the Constitution. But you were probably just jerking my chain when you said that.
As soon as the LDS Church posts it to the back of the D&C then I'll consider the Constitution scripture. Those men that wrote it are not God's.
And thank you so much for your wise, condescending counsel.
I didn't refer to it as scripture. Let's keep things in context.
Adam Smith was not a socialist. In 1776 he published a book called "The Wealth of Nations", which was the philosophical foundation for free-market economics. Yes he was friends with Franklin; the other founders respected his philosophy enough to experiment upon it here in America. Hamilton put the mechanics in place in the 1790s that built the greatest economy the world has ever known. Socialism as an utopian idea developed around the 1830s in response to the industrial revolution. So, Adam Smith could not have been a socialist philosopher. The quote does sound socialistic but I think what Smith meant would need to be studied in a greater context. Can you please give a reference on the quote?
I found that quote on a blog and a website with only the reference to - An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). No page number. Sorry.
But I did find out some more info about Smith, who was, in reality the Father of Capitalism. The corporate businessman's equivalent of the Holy Father. Smith knew that progressive taxation wasn't socialist (not even a word then), but was necessary to redistribute wealth not equally, but responsibly back into society. He understood that it's the wealthy that benefit the most.
Now it's harder than ever to achieve the American Dream, and because the weight of the "have's" has shifted so much in their favor, the economy is tanking. Why can't Republican's see that for what it is. Failure.
Adam Smith was dead right.
Admittedly, I didn't know off hand who Adam Smith was. It sounded vaguely familiar, but I shrugged it off as being two common names put together. Adam. Smith.
But I looked into him more and realized Adam Smith wrote, "Wealth of Nations", an advanced economic theory which provided the ideological basis for capitalism. The quote you used is probably from an earlier book, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", which some seem contradictory to his later work. He believed that the free market (aka capitalism) appearing chaotic and unrestrained, is actually guided to produce the right amount and variety of goods by a so-called "invisible hand". He introduced the three concepts which laid the foundation for free market economics: division of labor (assembly line concept), SELF INTEREST, and freedom of trade. He understood that people are motivated by 'self-interest' instead of communal wealth. So my interpretation, although ideally he wanted the best for everyone, he knew what drove markets to success were those three things.
Post a Comment