Senate GOP seizes control in political coup

[Jaron]

And what exactly in these books leads you to this conclusion, ulmont?

[Berkut]

Wow, that is some serious projecting you are doing there, or something.

I have no idea that a parole officer should make - I just know it should be based on what the market will pay them, rather than what they can blackmail some politician into paying them.

I imagine I would do about as well as other people with my expertise do in the current labor market, where I to be laid off - why would I do any worse or better?

I have no idea what you are babbling on about in regards to labor groups and corpses. Is this about my lack of interest in Obama using my money to bail out unions?

1. Projecting? You're the one assuming every union employee is paid massively above the norm. Why don't you go looking up some numbers before you start making those kinds of claims.

I think you are lying. Where have I ever claimed that "every union employee is paid massively above the norm". I don't think you can find any quote from me saying any such thing.

2. As much as you bitch about "entitlement cultures," you certainly act like you're owed something; the comment was because you can't seem to grasp the fact that employees need to be competitive with others in their qualifications range. You'd hardline and then wonder why every time your resume went either to the bottom of the pile or straight to the trash can.

Again, when have I ever acted as if I am owed anything? What does the word "hardline" mean as a verb? My resume, such times that I have been looking for a job, has never gone to the bottom of the pile or to the trash can that I am aware of - of course, I am not sure what my resume has to do with this debate however.

And of course salaries must be competitive - that is my point, and I won't give it up to you.

3. I said nothing about the feds specifically. I'm talking about the way you've been taking a massive dump on anyone in the public sector and any government aid program that's been mentioned over the past several months. The troll is getting old. You're so far anti-government as to be borderline anarchist. We get it.

Wow, you don't pay much attention, do you? Who in the public sector have I taken a massive dump on? Can you name all these people? And *any* government aid program? Really? Can you back that one up?

I suspect you cannot anymore than you can back up the lie that that I said every union employee is paid masively above the norm.

[Berkut]

Contrary to popular myth, Adam Smith was not anything close to laissez faire.

The idea that unless you are in favor of centrally planned government you are some kind of pseudo-anarchist is a "convenient truth" of the left.

[Barrister]

Who in the public sector have I taken a massive dump on? Can you name all these people?

Well, there's Strix...

[MadImmortalMan]

Contrary to popular myth, Adam Smith was not anything close to laissez faire.

The idea that unless you are in favor of centrally planned government you are some kind of pseudo-anarchist is a "convenient truth" of the left.

True, but it's also a convenient way to claim Adam Smith as a member of the economic right and use his name as support for such. Smith actually supported progressive taxation, various kinds of tariffs, government intervention on behalf of the poor and other things. I think reading selected quotes from WoN without taking the rest of Smith's philosophy for human interaction into account is a mistake. His primary societal value seems to be what he calls Sympathy. Not selfishness or hard-core-noninterventionism.

[Berkut]

Who in the public sector have I taken a massive dump on? Can you name all these people?

Well, there's Strix...

Indeed, but he brings that on himself.

What I was responding to was this claim though:

I'm talking about the way you've been taking a massive dump on anyone in the public sector

A rather odd statement to make, since I don't think I've slammed anyone in the public sector other than Strix, much less "anyone".

Of course, we already know who is losing this argument  - the side that has to resort to the ad hom rather than counter actual points.

[Berkut]

Contrary to popular myth, Adam Smith was not anything close to laissez faire.

The idea that unless you are in favor of centrally planned government you are some kind of pseudo-anarchist is a "convenient truth" of the left.

True, but it's also a convenient way to claim Adam Smith as a member of the economic right and use his name as support for such. Smith actually supported progressive taxation, various kinds of tariffs, government intervention on behalf of the poor and other things. I think reading selected quotes from WoN without taking the rest of Smith's philosophy for human interaction into account is a mistake. His primary societal value seems to be what he calls Sympathy. Not selfishness or hard-core-noninterventionism.

Well Smith lived in the actual real world, so had actual real world (hence nuanced) views about things.

Saying that the government should not meddle in the market in general is hardly saying that they should never do so, although of course those who want the government to run the market argue that any dissent  is in fact "anarchist". It is short hand for actual thinking and considered thought, I suspect.

[ulmont]

And what exactly in these books leads you to this conclusion, ulmont?

Well, for starters, read this chapter:  http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN13.html#B.IV,%20Ch.2,%20Of%20Restraints%20upon%20the%20Importation%20from%20Foreign%20Countries

Smith starts off by going through the distorting effects of tariffs, but then explicitly supports two different kinds of tariffs:

1) To support industries necessary for defense (shipbuilding, in his example).  The logic could be (and has been) used to support farm subsidies for self-sufficiency, or a green energy program, etc.
2) To equalize the playing field where industries are taxed domestically.  This is the general thrust of calls for "fair trade" treaties to ensure that labor and environmental costs are accounted for in comparing the price of domestic goods and foreign goods.

[Admiral Yi]

2) To equalize the playing field where industries are taxed domestically.  This is the general thrust of calls for "fair trade" treaties to ensure that labor and environmental costs are accounted for in comparing the price of domestic goods and foreign goods.

The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former. This would not give the monopoly of the home market to domestic industry, nor turn towards a particular employment a greater share of the stock and labour of the country than what would naturally go to it. It would only hinder any part of what would naturally go to it from being turned away by the tax into a less natural direction, and would leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it. In Great Britain, when any such tax is laid upon the produce of domestic industry, it is usual at the same time, in order to stop the clamorous complaints of our merchants and manufacturers that they will be undersold at home, to lay a much heavier duty upon the importation of all foreign goods of the same kind.

You're misreading Smith's position.  He's talking about the case when certain domestic industries are taxed higher than other domestic industries.  He gives some examples later on, like salt.  His argument for the tariff in that case is to duplicate for the imported goods the distorting effect already residing in the excise tax.

[MadImmortalMan]

2) To equalize the playing field where industries are taxed domestically.  This is the general thrust of calls for "fair trade" treaties to ensure that labor and environmental costs are accounted for in comparing the price of domestic goods and foreign goods.

The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former. This would not give the monopoly of the home market to domestic industry, nor turn towards a particular employment a greater share of the stock and labour of the country than what would naturally go to it. It would only hinder any part of what would naturally go to it from being turned away by the tax into a less natural direction, and would leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it. In Great Britain, when any such tax is laid upon the produce of domestic industry, it is usual at the same time, in order to stop the clamorous complaints of our merchants and manufacturers that they will be undersold at home, to lay a much heavier duty upon the importation of all foreign goods of the same kind.

You're misreading Smith's position.  He's talking about the case when certain domestic industries are taxed higher than other domestic industries.  He gives some examples later on, like salt.  His argument for the tariff in that case is to duplicate for the imported goods the distorting effect already residing in the excise tax.

He supported tariffs as a form of trade retribution, yes. We learned our lesson in the '30s about that one though. Hopefully.

[Admiral Yi]

He supported tariffs as a form of trade retribution, yes. We learned our lesson in the '30s about that one though. Hopefully.

He did?

[MadImmortalMan]

I believe so. It's been a while since I read it though.

[Admiral Yi]

I believe so. It's been a while since I read it though.

Well ulmont just linked a chapter of his book in which he writes there are two cases in which tariffs are not dumbassed, and retaliating was not one of the cases he mentioned.

[MadImmortalMan]

I believe so. It's been a while since I read it though.

Well ulmont just linked a chapter of his book in which he writes there are two cases in which tariffs are not dumbassed, and retaliating was not one of the cases he mentioned.

Here. From his link (I didn't realize the text was online.):

The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods is, when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country. Revenge in this case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose the like duties and prohibitions upon the importation of some or all of their manufactures into ours.

That certainly seems like he's saying so.


Edit: As an equalizer, I presume.

[grumbler]

True, but it's also a convenient way to claim Adam Smith as a member of the economic right and use his name as support for such. Smith actually supported progressive taxation, various kinds of tariffs, government intervention on behalf of the poor and other things. I think reading selected quotes from WoN without taking the rest of Smith's philosophy for human interaction into account is a mistake. His primary societal value seems to be what he calls Sympathy. Not selfishness or hard-core-noninterventionism.

Smith's economic ideas were very much those of most proponents of the "economic right" today.  Smith supported only retaliatory tariffs, for instance, and insisted that free trade was preferable in all other circumstances.  Smith favored government intervention in favor of the poor only insofar as it was eliminating "unnatural legislation" (or something to that effect).  He certainly was not in favor of a welfare state.

Smith's concept of  sympathy was that people provided it out of self-interest, not some external moral force.  People were happier, he said, when they did not have to see misery in others.

So, you may complain that Smith seems to support those with whom you disagree, but you cannot re-invent him as a supporter of your own views... at least, not and have any credibility in the effort.