"The manufacturer has always been accustomed to look for his subsistence from his labour only: the soldier to expect it from his pay. Application and industry have been familiar to the one; idleness and dissipation to the other."
Adam may have been a good 'ole boy but this is a dim and ignorant view of a military man's life during a time of conflict. Perhaps of a garrison soldier, but not of those who expect to be on the front lines soon, or are veterans of the front lines. Let Adam train for combat and let us then ask his opinion of whether a soldier labors or not.
God knows I could have used some of that good 'ole idleness and dissapation at many a time of my career. ;-D
It is interesting, however, to see testiment to the fact that vast amounts of manpower can be absorbed into society and extremely little ill effects are demonstrated.
Capitalism, free markets, and trade; gotta love it.
K Ackermann
· 7 months ago
Jesus Christ! I'm in agreement with vidyohs.
I need another anti-deptressent.
vidyohs
· 7 months ago
Hang around with an open mind, K Ackerman, and it will happen again, I assure you.
I am a dumb-ass Texas street guy, but I have ciphered up me some stuff, you betcha.
;-D
K Ackermann
· 7 months ago
I'm an olde tyme Boston yankee with a new Oregon attitude.
The Oregon motto is:
For f***s sake,
Leave me alone,
Live your life,
I'll live mine.
vidyohs
· 7 months ago
Gotcha bro. Good motto.
Mine is "Find a way, or make one."
Course in there is being left alone as well.
BTW, I spent a year in the Framingham, Natick area and outside of the fact that I could not get my house sold and my wife and kids up there, it was one of the best years of my life.
I played and ref'd a lot of sports back then and there was no end of great people to know and hang around with.
If you wanted a conversation just ask out loud how the......."season team" did last night or yesterday. You had an instaneous group discussion on the spot.
ardyan
· 7 months ago
Ok, so Smith had some wonderful insights for his day. But he had little empirical evidence to base his opinions on, so who could have predicted his ideological victory? Couldn't Marx have just as easily been the victor? (my apologies if this question has already been asked)
brotio
· 7 months ago
"Couldn't Marx have just as easily been the victor?" - Ardyan
Ardyan,
Adam Smith was observing human nature. Marx ignored human nature, and wrote about what he thought it ought to be.
Gil
· 7 months ago
Wasn't Marx the victor during the 20th century?
ardyan
· 7 months ago
Marx ignored human nature, and wrote about what he thought it ought to be.
Did he really? I believe that they were both observers of human nature, their main differences being that Smith had a lot of faith in markets and human self-interest whereas Marx was more skeptical, believing that markets would drive wages down to the point where people would revolt against bourgeoisie.
vidyohs
· 7 months ago
"Marx was more skeptical, believing that markets would drive wages down to the point where people would revolt against bourgeoisie.
Posted by: ardyan | May 16, 2009 9:56:20 AM"
Unfortunately for Marx, this never happened.
Which strengthens Brotio's case immeasureably against your argument.
ardyan
· 7 months ago
Wo, ho, ho, hold on. I am making no argument for Marx here. I am simply wondering if it was simply by Smith's good fortune that he was generally correct, or if there was some inherent reason for capitalism's success.
Believe me, I'm glad the U.S. didn't turn into some Soviet satellite.
Sam Grove
· 7 months ago
I am simply wondering if it was simply by Smith's good fortune that he was generally correct, or if there was some inherent reason for capitalism's success.
Marx envisioned an engineered society in which humans would act as selfless creatures and work for the benefit of their fellow selfless creatures.
As anyone with functioning brain cell should know, humans are not selfless creatures, nor will they ever be, and the only way you can get them to work for their fellow humans is if they can profit from said labor.
Humans are often willing to sacrifice...others, but rarely are they interested in sacrificing themselves, except for that which they value very highly, for example, their children.
vidyohs
· 7 months ago
"Wo, ho, ho, hold on. I am making no argument for Marx here.
Posted by: ardyan | May 16, 2009 12:35:38 PM"
My bad?
"Marx ignored human nature, and wrote about what he thought it ought to be."
Considering Marx was so intensely, vastly, decidely wrong, could it be said that he was an equal observers of human nature on par with Adam Smith, or is Brotio correct in that Marx may have looked at humans but he definitely misinterpreted what he saw, and then formulated all his theories on his misinterpretation? In other words, "what he thought it ought to be".
Frankly, I put Marx on the same shelf with Freud, both were hucksters, and both developed theories that sucked in the weak and lazy; theories designed to excuse failures and make them appear normal or even noble. Marx and Freud may be the two most long term destructive people in the history of mankind.
Gil
· 7 months ago
"Unfortunately for Marx, this never happened." - vidyohs
But what of the rise of the welfare state and trade unions during the 20th century?
Chuck
· 7 months ago
"...all accustomed to the use of arms, and many of them to rapine and plunder."
Amazing how frankly he spoke. Can you imagine any prominent pundit saying something so politically incorrect today?
All Comments
"The manufacturer has always been accustomed to look for his subsistence from his labour only: the soldier to expect it from his pay. Application and industry have been familiar to the one; idleness and dissipation to the other."
Adam may have been a good 'ole boy but this is a dim and ignorant view of a military man's life during a time of conflict. Perhaps of a garrison soldier, but not of those who expect to be on the front lines soon, or are veterans of the front lines. Let Adam train for combat and let us then ask his opinion of whether a soldier labors or not.
God knows I could have used some of that good 'ole idleness and dissapation at many a time of my career. ;-D
It is interesting, however, to see testiment to the fact that vast amounts of manpower can be absorbed into society and extremely little ill effects are demonstrated.
Capitalism, free markets, and trade; gotta love it.
Jesus Christ! I'm in agreement with vidyohs.
I need another anti-deptressent.
Hang around with an open mind, K Ackerman, and it will happen again, I assure you.
I am a dumb-ass Texas street guy, but I have ciphered up me some stuff, you betcha.
;-D
I'm an olde tyme Boston yankee with a new Oregon attitude.
The Oregon motto is:
For f***s sake,
Leave me alone,
Live your life,
I'll live mine.
Gotcha bro. Good motto.
Mine is "Find a way, or make one."
Course in there is being left alone as well.
BTW, I spent a year in the Framingham, Natick area and outside of the fact that I could not get my house sold and my wife and kids up there, it was one of the best years of my life.
I played and ref'd a lot of sports back then and there was no end of great people to know and hang around with.
If you wanted a conversation just ask out loud how the......."season team" did last night or yesterday. You had an instaneous group discussion on the spot.
Ok, so Smith had some wonderful insights for his day. But he had little empirical evidence to base his opinions on, so who could have predicted his ideological victory? Couldn't Marx have just as easily been the victor? (my apologies if this question has already been asked)
"Couldn't Marx have just as easily been the victor?" - Ardyan
Ardyan,
Adam Smith was observing human nature. Marx ignored human nature, and wrote about what he thought it ought to be.
Wasn't Marx the victor during the 20th century?
Marx ignored human nature, and wrote about what he thought it ought to be.
Did he really? I believe that they were both observers of human nature, their main differences being that Smith had a lot of faith in markets and human self-interest whereas Marx was more skeptical, believing that markets would drive wages down to the point where people would revolt against bourgeoisie.
"Marx was more skeptical, believing that markets would drive wages down to the point where people would revolt against bourgeoisie.
Posted by: ardyan | May 16, 2009 9:56:20 AM"
Unfortunately for Marx, this never happened.
Which strengthens Brotio's case immeasureably against your argument.
Wo, ho, ho, hold on. I am making no argument for Marx here. I am simply wondering if it was simply by Smith's good fortune that he was generally correct, or if there was some inherent reason for capitalism's success.
Believe me, I'm glad the U.S. didn't turn into some Soviet satellite.
I am simply wondering if it was simply by Smith's good fortune that he was generally correct, or if there was some inherent reason for capitalism's success.
Marx envisioned an engineered society in which humans would act as selfless creatures and work for the benefit of their fellow selfless creatures.
As anyone with functioning brain cell should know, humans are not selfless creatures, nor will they ever be, and the only way you can get them to work for their fellow humans is if they can profit from said labor.
Humans are often willing to sacrifice...others, but rarely are they interested in sacrificing themselves, except for that which they value very highly, for example, their children.
"Wo, ho, ho, hold on. I am making no argument for Marx here.
Posted by: ardyan | May 16, 2009 12:35:38 PM"
My bad?
"Marx ignored human nature, and wrote about what he thought it ought to be."
Considering Marx was so intensely, vastly, decidely wrong, could it be said that he was an equal observers of human nature on par with Adam Smith, or is Brotio correct in that Marx may have looked at humans but he definitely misinterpreted what he saw, and then formulated all his theories on his misinterpretation? In other words, "what he thought it ought to be".
Frankly, I put Marx on the same shelf with Freud, both were hucksters, and both developed theories that sucked in the weak and lazy; theories designed to excuse failures and make them appear normal or even noble. Marx and Freud may be the two most long term destructive people in the history of mankind.
"Unfortunately for Marx, this never happened." - vidyohs
But what of the rise of the welfare state and trade unions during the 20th century?
"...all accustomed to the use of arms, and many of them to rapine and plunder."
Amazing how frankly he spoke. Can you imagine any prominent pundit saying something so politically incorrect today?