I think in todays modern day finance is not applicable to the truth that Adam Smith discussed.

And you can bet that in Smith’s day, the people who wanted the government to crack down on engrossing and forestalling were just as willing as you are to grant the value of speculation in theory, but considered their particular circumstances to be different.

My purpose here is simply to refute your claim that Smith did not approve of commodity speculation. That is demonstrably false.

Of course, as is to be expected, you ignore this and continue to pretend that “times were different back then.” No, they were not. People have always and will always fear and misunderstand commodity speculation, just as people have always and will always fear and misunderstand international trade. Some things never change, and there will always be people like Muirgeo around who desperately need but adamantly refuse economic education.

I think in todays modern day finance is not applicable to the truth that Adam Smith discussed.

And you can bet that in Smith’s day, the people who wanted the government to crack down on engrossing and forestalling were just as willing as you are to grant the value of speculation in theory, but considered their particular circumstances to be different.

My purpose here is simply to refute your claim that Smith did not approve of commodity speculation. That is demonstrably false.

Of course, as is to be expected, you ignore this and continue to pretend that “times were different back then.” No, they were not. People have always and will always fear and misunderstand commodity speculation, just as people have always and will always fear and misunderstand international trade. Some things never change, and there will always be people like Muirgeo around who desperately need but adamantly refuse economic education.

my point on libertarianism is that it leads right back to what you call conservative crony capitalism. When deregulated corporations, bankers and Wall Street find easy profit in using their wealth to get new rules favoring their positions and digging into the public trough.

And the pin drops.

No. It doesn’t. It bears burden of proof with such a silly charge. See my cited quote in my previous post in this thread.

This is always where it wants to go. This is always its central point. This why I say it is duplicitous when it talks about free markets. Take note. And it has had this explained to it far too many times to waste time explaining and deconstructing this sophism again. Like I said already: it doesn’t care. It needs crony corporatism and libertarianism to be the same thing in order to make its silly assertions. It needs to overlook everything it has ever been told to make an argument. Basically it needs Peter and Paul to be the same person in blurry kinda way whose bluriness escapes it because it doesn’t care.

It thinks its on to something but it is really just chasing its own tail. It doesn’t get it. It doesn’t care.

And even when many libertarians in the past have flat out contradicted this whole sophism right to its face in plain English at Cafe Hayek…even Dr. Boudreaux and Dr. Russ Roberts themselves have done it…, it evades it, ignores it and shifts its point. Again recall my quote:

It likes to criticize libertarians for supporting things that they do in fact oppose and opposing things that they do in fact support. It also likes to conflate corporatism and free markets when criticizing free markets and separating them when trying to offer a hollow and hypocritical word of support for free markets.

In short, it is a duplicitous character that is not to be taken seriously.

I meant every word of it and it is 100% accurate. Feed it at your own risk.

my point on libertarianism is that it leads right back to what you call conservative crony capitalism. When deregulated corporations, bankers and Wall Street find easy profit in using their wealth to get new rules favoring their positions and digging into the public trough.

And the pin drops.

No. It doesn’t. It bears burden of proof with such a silly charge. See my cited quote in my previous post in this thread.

This is always where it wants to go. This is always its central point. This why I say it is duplicitous when it talks about free markets. Take note. And it has had this explained to it far too many times to waste time explaining and deconstructing this sophism again. Like I said already: it doesn’t care. It needs crony corporatism and libertarianism to be the same thing in order to make its silly assertions. It needs to overlook everything it has ever been told to make an argument. Basically it needs Peter and Paul to be the same person in blurry kinda way whose bluriness escapes it because it doesn’t care.

It thinks its on to something but it is really just chasing its own tail. It doesn’t get it. It doesn’t care.

And even when many libertarians in the past have flat out contradicted this whole sophism right to its face in plain English at Cafe Hayek…even Dr. Boudreaux and Dr. Russ Roberts themselves have done it…, it evades it, ignores it and shifts its point. Again recall my quote:

It likes to criticize libertarians for supporting things that they do in fact oppose and opposing things that they do in fact support. It also likes to conflate corporatism and free markets when criticizing free markets and separating them when trying to offer a hollow and hypocritical word of support for free markets.

In short, it is a duplicitous character that is not to be taken seriously.

I meant every word of it and it is 100% accurate. Feed it at your own risk.

John to summarize my point on libertarianism is that it leads right back to what you call conservative crony capitalism. When deregulated corporations, bankers and Wall Street find easy profit in using their wealth to get new rules favoring their positions and digging into the public trough.

In principle libertarianism sounds good but in practice it doesn’t work as shown by its complete lack of existence in any natural system. It is Darwinistically selected against as an unfit specimen on which to based human society. It’s a cultural evolutionary dead end. My simple request for evidence of a successful libertarian society always goes unchallenged and it is for that reason I favor the idea of well regulated markets as opposed to those where the rules are made by a privileged few. THAT’s IT! Nothing sinister just a pragmatic yet admitted imperfect approach backed by worldly evidence and in my opinion the closest one can get to using competition and market forces for the good of all.

John to summarize my point on libertarianism is that it leads right back to what you call conservative crony capitalism. When deregulated corporations, bankers and Wall Street find easy profit in using their wealth to get new rules favoring their positions and digging into the public trough.

In principle libertarianism sounds good but in practice it doesn’t work as shown by its complete lack of existence in any natural system. It is Darwinistically selected against as an unfit specimen on which to based human society. It’s a cultural evolutionary dead end. My simple request for evidence of a successful libertarian society always goes unchallenged and it is for that reason I favor the idea of well regulated markets as opposed to those where the rules are made by a privileged few. THAT’s IT! Nothing sinister just a pragmatic yet admitted imperfect approach backed by worldly evidence and in my opinion the closest one can get to using competition and market forces for the good of all.