Monday, August 10, 2026 - 1:24:48 PM
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. Republicans prefer to call
it profit. All political parties are
susceptible to waste, fraud and
abuse, e.g., conservative
call it profit, and require oversite.
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.
