WDF, read my posts. You're deflecting now. It isn't working. We all know. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyI read your post, read mine. Show where I tried to pass off Adam Smith's writing as my own. I clearly showed that it was Adam Smith material even thoug it was lifted from wiki.
You lifted the Wiki commentary along with the quotes, moron. I caught that. You've never read the book, and wouldn't have been able to understand it if you had.Men/women act in their own self interest when push comes to shove. It is not absolute but in general. That is human nature. You were arguing aganist human nature and when you lost that battle, you bring up this wiki straw.
You've been exposed. Deal with it. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
You forget The Theory of Moral Sentiments, where Smith first introduced the invisible hand.
However, Smith rejected the idea that Man was capable of forming moral judgements beyond a limited sphere of activity, again centered around his own self-interest:The administration of the great system of the universe ... the care of the universal happiness of all rational and sensible beings, is the business of God and not of man. To man is allotted a much humbler department, but one much more suitable to the weakness of his powers, and to the narrowness of his comprehension: the care of his own happiness, of that of his family, his friends, his country.... But though we are ... endowed with a very strong desire of those ends, it has been entrusted to the slow and uncertain determinations of our reason to find out the proper means of bringing them about. Nature has directed us to the greater part of these by original and immediate instincts. Hunger, thirst, the passion which unites the two sexes, and the dread of pain, prompt us to apply those means for their own sakes, and without any consideration of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the great Director of nature intended to produce by them.It was in the TMS that Smith first referred to the "invisible hand" to describe the apparent benefits to society of people behaving in their own interests. Smith writes (6th ed. p. 350
Originally Posted by WTF
Comparing it to GDP is ridiculous. Just like the dumb Democrats compare the debt to the GDP. No wonder we're fucked. It is the absolute dollars spent that matters. I'm glad you feel safe while throwing away billions of dollars. No party is serious about the budget and deficit until defense is also on the table. Just like the private industry - DO MORE WITH LESS, AND IF YOU CAN'T GO FIND OUT A DIFFERENT WAY TO MAKE A LIVING! That's what us productive folks are reminded of every day in the private industry and American corporations are making record profits. Now before you start with the stupidity that the military is non-profit, I know that so no need to remind me, but productivity and efficiency applies equally to every organization. Originally Posted by icuminpeaceNo, it is not ridiculous to use the percentage of the GDP for comparison, because that's exactly the measure you use when you select both providers and frequency of your visits. But unlike hobbying, defense is not a luxury. It is prescribed as one of the government's enumerated responsibilities. Your current life style and privileges were garnered by the sacrifices of servicemen and women. This country was forged by the sacrifices of American soldiers, sailors and Marines. Their continued sacrifice preserved this country in subsequent wars, and this country's commercial-logistical lifelines are protected by servicemen and women's continued sacrifice, hypocrite.
No, it is not ridiculous to use the percentage of the GDP . Originally Posted by I B HankeringWhat happens when GDP goes down?
What happens when GDP goes down?The same thing that happens to your choice of motor vehicles when your income goes down: you settle for the best you can get for the dollars you have. Now answer this: Who achieved a better return for tax monies spent during a depressed economy: Odumbo with Solyndra or Grover Cleveland with the Great White Fleet?
Should we then cut military spending?
http://armedforcesjournal.com/2007/03/2545232
To cite the “historically low percentage of GDP” argument as reason to further increase defense spending “is a specious argument, Hellman said. “It’s like your landlord saying that since you got a pay raise, your rent should increase.” The GDP number describes the value of the U.S. economy. It tells nothing about how much the military needs to spend, he said.
“What happens if GDP decreases?” as it might during a major recession. “Would the military then support a parallel reduction in its budget? I think not,” Hellman said. Originally Posted by WTF
If so, it's literally the only thing you can possibly say about this. And if you've never served your country in the armed forces, I'd take it as a kindness if you kept your negativity to yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/agUx79yG1Lo?rel=0 Originally Posted by LovingKayla
Do you think individual soldiers will vote for a candidate that promises to cut the military budget? Everyone one wants balanced budgets, but when it comes to cutting, everyone protects their piece of the pie. That's why we're fucked. Originally Posted by icuminpeace
. Now answer this: Who achieved a better return for tax monies spent during a depressed economy: Odumbo with Solyndra or Grover Cleveland with the Great White Fleet? Originally Posted by I B HankeringI do not know anything about the Great White Fleet but I'd have to vote for it based on what I know about the other!
The thurst of my point was Adam Smith's own words, not some wiki commentary. So there was no intent to decieve nor take credit for something that I thought needed no credit.You're lying. We all know what you did. You've been exposed as a fraud and buffoon.
I have read the book, not all of it and not in some twenty years. Do I understand or agree with it all? No. Do you?
I think you are mad at me for talking about your gayness. Pull my finger if you'd like for me to stop. Originally Posted by WTF