The Real Adam Smith

[Kidlicious]

Mr. Fun has said a bunch of things.

So you've read the book? My apologies then.

I would like to accept your apology, but are you just apologizing for blaming me for not reading the book, or are you apologizing for using a dishonest tactic.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm apologising for accusing you of not reading the book.

If you and Mr. Fun aren't big enough to accept an honest apology, I don't know what to say. Heaven knows I'll never receive one in return.

[Ben Kenobi]

Using the word diversify makes you look ignorant. The word people use is specialize.

Ignorant? I find it funny that the only one who needs to puff himself up is you. I was perfectly able to understand what you were referring to.

Again you sound ignorant, because he doesn't say that nations always benefit from trade. He says that nations benefit from trade under certain conditions.

Trade is more favourable under certain conditions, yes, but trade in general has greater benefit when it's two-way. This is the classic argument against mercantilism, which is simply that you should acquire the raw materials yourself and derive benefit through monopolistic exchange.

I know why you are having difficulty with this principle, and that's because you believe there's always a loser and a winner in every trade. I used to think the same as well, but my observations showed me precisely the opposite.

So it's not the modern free trade argument.

Great, so now I need to quote the book?

Way to show comprehension, kid.

Look, props if you actually read the book, but I see no evidence here that you've actually read it beyond the television program you've watched.

I'm glad though you have syncophants like Mr. Fun who agree with you. I'm sure you find that comforting.

Maybe they will be a CNN special and Mr Fun will start his own thread.

[MrFun]

I'm apologising for accusing you of not reading the book.

If you and Mr. Fun aren't big enough to accept an honest apology, I don't know what to say. Heaven knows I'll never receive one in return.

It's hard for me to accept an apology from someone who hates gay people.

[Drake Tungsten]

And it's hard for me to accept anything from a ****ing Iowegian. Deal with it.

[MrFun]

Drake, you can't make up your mind whether to have me on Ignore, or have me off Ignore, can you?

[Ben Kenobi]

It's hard for me to accept an apology from someone who hates gay people.

Let's get this straight.

I'm perfectly fine with gay people.

You on the other hand...

[MrFun]

I'm perfectly fine with gay people.

[Elok]

This matters because if Adam Smith was a strict egalitarian than all conservative thought is bastardization. Who is their father then?

Eh, I still find it irrelevant since most of our adulation for founding fathers, and for dead famous people generally, tends to be rather selective. For example, lots of people idolize Jefferson, and very few of them are yeoman farmers, or believe we should have more yeoman farmers...ideas should stand or fall on their own merits, not because of the ostensible endorsement of the long-departed.

[Kidlicious]

Eh, I still find it irrelevant since most of our adulation for founding fathers, and for dead famous people generally, tends to be rather selective.

Well I don't idealize Smith. I'm just commenting on the fact that some do, and don't seem to really understand what he was saying. Smith is very often quoted by people who don't understand what they are quoting.

For example, lots of people idolize Jefferson, and very few of them are yeoman farmers, or believe we should have more yeoman farmers...

A lot of people who like Jefferson also think that family farmers are good to have. But besides that they agree with him that power should not be concentrated, which is really more important.

ideas should stand or fall on their own merits, not because of the ostensible endorsement of the long-departed.

That's like saying we should never debate anything, and just let ideas stand on their own.

[Kidlicious]

Ignorant? I find it funny that the only one who needs to puff himself up is you.

I was defending myself. That's pretty obvious. Otherwise I would have "puffed myself up" in the OP.

I was perfectly able to understand what you were referring to.

That's in no way obvious. Remember I asked you to show us that you read the book. I'm not saying that you didn't read the book. Conservatives seem to have a reading comprehension problem. But you didn't show me that you read the book.

Trade is more favourable under certain conditions, yes, but trade in general has greater benefit when it's two-way. This is the classic argument against mercantilism, which is simply that you should acquire the raw materials yourself and derive benefit through monopolistic exchange.

I know why you are having difficulty with this principle, and that's because you believe there's always a loser and a winner in every trade. I used to think the same as well, but my observations showed me precisely the opposite.

This is all nonsense. I don't believe the things you are claiming that I do. No real suprize there.

Look, props if you actually read the book, but I see no evidence here that you've actually read it beyond the television program you've watched.

But you have evidence that I didn't? What is that evidence?