Monday, August 10, 2026 - 9:27:24 AM
Quick Take --------------------------------------------
Pat, I am OK. You are OK.
Let’s be honest with each other?
Communism failed twice, Stalinism and Maoism in the mid 20th century. Stalinism and Maoism never got close to McCarthyism’s “red-scare” Orwellian "1984” Communism.
Free-market laissez-faire capitalism has been at the root of every other war, depression, dictatorship, catastrophic failure since the beginning of time! Neither economic philosophy is anywhere near beyond reproach.
Waste, fraud and abuse are not exclusively a Republican nor a Democratic party issue. All political parties are susceptible to waste, fraud and abuse, conservatives call it profit, and require oversight.
The larger developed world’s 30+ year PROVEN success with Universal-Democratic-Socialized-Healthcare is positive and self-evident!
I therefore support Democratic-Socialism.
Questions:
Ø How did the free market expression of the Pyramids, roughly 2700 BCE and 1500 BCE, advantage anyone but THE pharaohs?
Ø How did the free market expression of the Palace at Versailles, Buckingham Palace, or Biltmore Estate advantage anyone other than the principles?
Stalinism and Maoism cost maybe 100 million people combined. How many people do you think the Pyramids, Palace at Versailles, Buckingham Palace, or Biltmore Estate cost the people that built them, historically adjusted[1]? From the totalitarian aspect there was NO difference. Totalitarianism be it capitalism, Stalinism or Maoism always starts from a benign positive and then goes awry. Democratic Socialism starts from a benign positive and is then democratically directed.
Pyramids, Palace at Versailles, Buckingham Palace, Biltmore Estate, Stalinism and Maoism all suffered from the too proverbially referenced “fraud, waste and abuse” of human nature from the very top, to the bottom.
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) formulated his monarchial philosophy, the ends justify the means and the preservation / accumulation of power as paramount.
That brought us to the beginning of the end of the monarchy, the United States’s revolution and Adam Smith’s[2] (1723–1790) “Democratic Socialism.” Too many people read the “Wealth of Nations” and come away believing in the “invisible hand” is Machiavellian, the ends justify any means. Nothing could be further from Adam Smith’s truth. Adam Smith wrote two books, several times i.e., "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" (1759, 1761, 1767, 1774, 1781, 1790) and "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (1776, 1778, 1784, 1786 1789). "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," his magnum opus, is the origin/premise for the “invisible hand” and “Wealth of Nations". That concept is based on the "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" "impartial spectator".
Adam Smith’s "impartial spectator" is an imaginary judge inside our minds, also called the "man within the breast", that helps us evaluate our own behavior fairly.
The Capitalism, Free Market’s Machiavelli’s “greed is good,” would be repugnant to Adam Smith’s "impartial spectator".
2026 08-05-26 Lets be honest with each other QUCIK TAKE
[1] World population at around 2100 BCE, the estimated world population was roughly 27,500,000 people. World population at 1950 was roughly 2,500,000,000 billon. The difference a factor of 100 (4%)
[2] I have to give Adam Smith his often capitalist overlooked due. Today’s McCarthy “red scare” infected free-market-capitalist have a naive and vague yet strident religious belief in the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith (1723–1790). Adam Smith wrote two books, several times i.e., "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" (1759, 1761, 1767, 1774, 1781, 1790) and "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (1776, 1778, 1784, 1786 1789).
If you are a naive sycophant economist, like the Nobel Prize winning Milton Friedman(?), you assert Smith’s magnum opus was the Wealth of Nations. Naivete, naivete, Smith wrote and then rewrote his magnum opus The Theory of Moral Sentiments 6 times and finished the last REWRITE months before his death. Smith coined the proverbial “invisible hand” FIRST in his magnum opus “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” in support of his belief that people were invisibly and inescapably benevolent, not the invisibly “greed is good” of an overtly unbenevolent modern capitalist.
The concept, “greed is good,” would be repugnant to Adam Smith.
Anybody that wants to use Adam Smith read his magnum opus “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” 6 times before they argue his economics in "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations."
Thanks in advance...
“Agere sequitur esse” (‘action follows being’)
David G. Jeep, Federal Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)
www.DGJeep.com - From: Dave@DGJeep.com - David.G.Jeep@Gmail.com
Mobile (314) 514-5228 leave message
David G. Jeep
1531 Pine St Apt #512
St. Louis, MO 63103-2548
No comments:
Post a Comment