Mystics Official Retirement

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Liberals are opposed to restricting immigration, but not opposed to restricting the privilege to vote. Wonder why? .

but not opposed to restricting the privilege to vote

How about because restricting the privilege to vote was called Jim Crow back in what you consider were the Good ole Days!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

http://zfacts.com/p/voodoo.html

GHBush correctly called supply side economics, voodoo ecenomics!

Reagan sold arms to Iran....so hardly a man one want to listen to about ignorance or reality.


.

That has nothing to do with the fact that lib-retards "educated" by the likes of Noam Chomsky are too prone to take certain events out of context to advance their lib-retard agendas. Chomsky notoriously failed to mention the Nanking Massacre, Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, etc., in his books to advance his thesis that it was naked American imperialistic racism that led to the atomic bomb being dropped on the "innocent Japanese" at Hiroshima. Reagan, for the most part, was very correct in that statement, regardless of who he may have sold weapons to and when.

Another example of lib-retards believing things "that ain't so": lib-retards argue simultaneously that men can have no say so in whether abortion is an acceptable practice, because men do not have a uterus. Then, with a straight face, a lib-retard will tell you that a man can be a woman even though a man doesn't have a uterus.

Originally Posted by WTF

Adam Smith did not advocate limiting the labor supply. But hey if you want to argue he did, be my guest!

Adam Smith did adhere to the notion that the nation was a refracted extension of one’s self-interests and disinterests; hence, Smith did advocate that a nation should exercise a bias favoring its own nationals over foreign nationals.

Georgetown Professor Richard Boyd uses Adam Smith’s writings to illustrate Adam Smith’s belief that it is only natural that the economy of Britain must serve the interests and needs of its British subjects before it addresses the needs and concerns of foreign subjects. Adam Smith was not a Marxist communist.

Adam Smith and Nationalism

[gnadfly]

If you look at themystics earlier posts he had a no AA policy.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

If you look at themystics earlier posts he had a no AA policy.

He's from Austin, right?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Another example of lib-retards believing things "that ain't so": lib-retards argue simultaneously that men can have no say so in whether abortion is an acceptable practice, because men do not have a uterus. Then, with a straight face, a lib-retard will tell you that a man can be a woman even though a man doesn't have a uterus.

Are you arguing that transgendered women should not have a say in abortions legality....I'd agree.

And yes....having old white men determining women's health care issues is not the greatest of decision making policy empowerment . A segment of society that makes up over half the population does not have a seat at the table in the latest GOP healthcare transformations? You think that wise?

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Adam Smith did adhere to the notion that the nation was a refracted extension of one’s self-interests and disinterests; hence, Smith did advocate that a nation should exercise a bias favoring its own nationals over foreign nationals. Hiring how you want to hire ....is not Ma

Georgetown Professor Richard Boyd uses Adam Smith’s writings to illustrate Adam Smith’s belief that it is only natural that the economy of Britain must serve the interests and needs of its British subjects before it addresses the needs and concerns of foreign subjects. Adam Smith was not a Marxist communist.

Adam Smith and Nationalism

Nobody said he was...Adam Smith first and foremost advocated that the individual make choices that best benefited himself , which would in turn benefit his or her country.

That is why he advocated for free trade in both capital and labor. That addresses the needs of British subjects before it addresses the needs and concerns of foreign subjects.

You are convoluting two different principles. You are under the incorrect assumption that free movement of labor hinders a country. It may hurt a certain segment of society but not society as a whole. Adam Smith advocated free trade in both labor and Capital because in the big picture it helped all. Your way of thinking would have us isolated still using blacksmiths.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Are you arguing that transgendered women should not have a say in abortions legality....I'd agree.

But I adhere to the more conservative principle that it is the individual's right to choose. procedure is right for her. We should have a reasonable cut off date for abortion and then let the individual decide.

No. Just pointing out the irreconcilable hypocrisy of the left.

Originally Posted by WTF

Nobody said he was....Adam Smith first and foremost advocated that the individual make choices that best benefited himself , which would in turn benefit his or her country.

That is why he advocated for free trade in both capital and labor. That addresses the needs of British subjects before it addresses the needs and concerns of foreign subjects.

You are convoluting two different principles. You are under the incorrect assumption that free movement of labor hinders a country. It may hurt a certain segment of society but not society as a whole. Adam Smith advocated free trade in both labor and Capital.

Adam Smith held nationalist beliefs and did not argue for open borders or the free movement of labor across national borders, because it would hurt a segment of British society. Watch the video, and listen to Dr Boyd cite Adam Smith's published stance on this issue.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No. Just pointing out the irreconcilable hypocrisy of the left.

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around from both sides. To never acknowledge hypocrisy from one's vested side is in itself hypocrisy on the highest level.


Adam Smith held nationalist beliefs and did not argue for open borders or the free movement of labor across national borders, because it would hurt a segment of British society. Watch the video, and listen to Dr Boyd cite Adam Smith's published stance on this issue.

Smith is actually saying that the movement of labor is preferable to the movement of capital. It keeps industry in the homeland! This is a very nuanced discussion but bottom line....the hypocrisy of some who promote free capital movement and not free labor movement.


http://www.reocities.com/Athens/Delp...7-a_smith.html


Adam Smith was an Economic Nationalist in that

Smith saw the "Invisible Hand" (which he only mentioned once in his major work, The Wealth of Nations, 1776) as being a reflection of man's innate patriotism. People when not subject to government intervention on behalf of a "commercial system" strongly biased towards export­led growth - a "Restrictive and Prohibitory Commercial System" in the words of Jeremy Bentham in 1821 - would follow that form of patriotism otherwise known as enlightened self-interest:

"As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Smith is actually saying that the movement of labor is preferable to the movement of capital. It keeps industry in the homeland! This is a very nuanced discussion but bottom line....the hypocrisy of some who promote free capital movement and not free labor movement.


http://www.reocities.com/Athens/Delp...7-a_smith.html


Adam Smith was an Economic Nationalist in that

Smith saw the "Invisible Hand" (which he only mentioned once in his major work, The Wealth of Nations, 1776) as being a reflection of man's innate patriotism. People when not subject to government intervention on behalf of a "commercial system" strongly biased towards exportled growth - a "Restrictive and Prohibitory Commercial System" in the words of Jeremy Bentham in 1821 - would follow that form of patriotism otherwise known as enlightened self-interest:

"As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."

nationalist
1 : an advocate of or believer in nationalism


nationalism
1 : loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness ... exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

nationalist
1 : an advocate of or believer in nationalism


nationalism
1 : loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness ... exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations

And Smith believed that the best way to promote your country was by free trade!

Do you not see the irony?

You have so called nationalist wanting to restrict trade and labor from moving freely which is the most efficient/beneficial to society! How is that a nationalist? How is that rooting for country? That is exactly what Smith was warning of. Restrictions benefit a certain segment of society, not the nation as a whole.

Free trade is the highest form of nationalism. It promotes the best quality of life for the whole country.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

And Smith believed that the best way to promote your country was by free trade!

Do you not see the irony?

You have so called nationalist wanting to restrict trade and labor from moving freely which is the most efficient/beneficial to society! How is that a nationalist? How is that rooting for country? That is exactly what Smith was warning of. Restrictions benefit a certain segment of society, not the nation as a whole.

Free trade is the highest form of nationalism. It promotes the best quality of life for the whole country.

Adam Smith was an advocate for Britain; not Spain ... not France ... not China ... not even the colonies. Smith didn't recognize a world that didn't have nation-states; hence, his economic theory was advanced to keep Britain -- to its lowliest subject -- at the apex over every other nation. He was against mercantilism with its fundamental and erroneous precept that capital was finite. However, the notion that Britain should allow Frenchmen (or any other foreign nationals) to cross the channel unfettered to the detriment of British subjects in the workplace was unthinkable to Adam Smith and contradicts what he wrote on the matter. "Britain über alles" was Smith's mantra, and that included taking care of British subjects in the workplace before allowing the free and unfettered influx of any foreign labor.

[LexusLover]

"Free trade is the highest form of nationalism. It promotes the best quality of life for the whole country."

That's the point: This country hasn't had "free trade" internationally in your lifetime.

[bamscram]

BS, hookers have been trading pussy for money.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Adam Smith was an advocate for Britain; not Spain ... not France ... not China ... not even the colonies. .

And the way he advocated for that was by free trade....free trade includes the free flow of Capital as well as Labor.

You are confusing politics with sound economic policy.

The politics may not allow for sound economic policy such as true free trade but is does not make them less sound.

Raising the cost of labor via tough immigration quotas move factories that can be moved to other countries....to move. It raises the costs of goods sold here and abroad and thus a loss of competiveness. Never a good thing.

But politically.....it sounds good to folks that know no better. It maybe a sound political move but it is not a sound economic move.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"Free trade is the highest form of nationalism. It promotes the best quality of life for the whole country."

That's the point: This country hasn't had "free trade" internationally in your lifetime.

In my lifetime....what about yours?

Please tell me the exact point in time we lost free trade.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

And the way he advocated for that was by free trade....free trade includes the free flow of Capital as well as Labor.

You are confusing politics with sound economic policy.

The politics may not allow for sound economic policy such as true free trade but is does not make them less sound.

Raising the cost of labor via tough immigration quotas move factories that can be moved to other countries....to move. It raises the costs of goods sold here and abroad and thus a loss of competiveness. Never a good thing.

But politically.....it sounds good to folks that know no better. It maybe a sound political move but it is not a sound economic move.

I'm not confused about what Adam Smith was advocating, why he was advocating what he did or for whom he was advocating: the British economy -- British economic supremacy -- and Britons.

Which mirrors Trump's position in regards to the U.S.