60 Minutes

Quote
Anonymous said:
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. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
Click to expand...

try responding with an original thought buddy
 




Anonymous said:
Ok biblical genius.... You show me where Sadducees said this "I remember... You are the radical who appears to be generally uneducated, ignorant about the political process, ignorant about economics, confused about your own platform from the beginning, and indelicate when it comes to the craft of diplomacy.", about Jesus.
Click to expand...

go get a bible and
read between teh lines
 




"A very large gas pipeline will soon skirt the Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC), an aging nuclear power plant that stands in the town of Cortlandt in Westchester County, New York, 30 miles north of Manhattan. The federal agencies that have permitted the project have bowed to two corporations -- the pipeline's owner, Spectra Energy, and Entergy, which bought the Indian Point complex in 2001 from its former owner."

This situation ignores sea level rise (SLR) and flooding dangers, not to mention the Safety 101 notion of not stacking risk upon risk ("don't put all of your eggs in one basket"):

Paul Blanch is a professional engineer with nearly five decades of experience in nuclear safety, engineering operations and federal regulatory requirements. He has security clearance for his work, and is a nuclear industry proponent. He has worked with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since its inception and for utility corporations across the United States, including Entergy. He also works pro bono for nuclear safety and has been doing this for the town of Cortlandt and local organizations including the grassroots group, Stop the Algonquin Pipeline Extension (SAPE), which has been fighting AIM for the past year and a half.

"I've had over 45 years of nuclear experience and [experience in] safety issues," Blanch told Truthout. "I have never seen [a situation] that essentially puts 20 million residents at risk, plus the entire economics of the United States by making a large area surrounding Indian Point uninhabitable for generations. I'm not an alarmist and haven't been known as an alarmist, but the possibility of a gas line interacting with a plant could easily cause a Fukushima type of release."

The potential hazards of the AIM construction near IPEC are no longer hypothetical. On March 3, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the AIM project in its entirety, from New York to the Canadian border.
 




Anonymous said:
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. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
Click to expand...

Acts 2:38-47

38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

39 For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.

40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation.

41 They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.

42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.

43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need.

46 And day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart,

47 praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved.




Acts 4:32-37

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul: and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 For neither was there among them any that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 and laid them at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need.

36 And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Son of exhortation), a Levite, a man of Cyprus by race,

37 having a field, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.
 




Anonymous said:
try responding with an original thought buddy
Click to expand...

Hey moron... You wanted to talk about Adam Smith. So instead of your bastardized views on Adam Smith, I gave you his words.

All you morons want to pretend to come up with some "original thoughts", but you always recycle all the failed totalitarian principles of the past.
 








Anonymous said:
Hey moron... You wanted to talk about Adam Smith. So instead of your bastardized views on Adam Smith, I gave you his words.

All you morons want to pretend to come up with some "original thoughts", but you always recycle all the failed totalitarian principles of the past.
Click to expand...


I know those were Smith's words.
I want to read YOUR words.
Try out some free, conceptual thinking some time.
You may impress me.
Maybe not.
 




Anonymous said:
I know those were Smith's words.
I want to read YOUR words.
Try out some free, conceptual thinking some time.
You may impress me.
Maybe not.
Click to expand...

I agree with Smith's words. Just like I agree that the Mona Lisa, The Last Supper and Lady with an Empire are examples of artistic perfection. I will no sooner add to Leonardo's artistic genius than I will add to the genius of Adam Smith's principles.

The problem with morons like you, is you always want to discard the knowledge and wisdom which has preceded you. You think you have some neat and novel new approach... You don't. Your newly branded forms of totalitarianism has all been tried before. They fail. They will always fail. Because at the heart or your philosophy, you ignore the individual. Ultimately, you enslave the individual.

Adam Smith knew that and he has already expressed it very well. To that, I say "ditto".
 




Anonymous said:
Go get a Bible and try to understand the lines in front of your face.
You are painfully stupid.
Click to expand...


"Jesus the Radical: A Portrait of the Man They Crucified"
https://books.google.com/books?id=xCiooknSt6gC


Those who know the story of Jesus are familiar with his confrontation with the religious establishment...it is a remarkable fact that the guardians of the law of God conceived such an implacable hatred for a popular preacher, who called people to a closer relationship with God and an unselfish love for their fellows, that in the end they would rather have a convicted murderer released than allow Jesus to go on preaching his 'good news'...

People sometimes think of those who opposed and eventually destroyed Jesus as simply 'the Pharisees', but this is quite unfair. We have seen..that the dominant group in the Sanhedrin, and therefore in the body which eventually did away with Jesus, was the Sadducees, and it would be a mistake to confuse this worldly aristocratic minority with their traditional rivals, the Pharisees. While most of the recorded controversies of Jesus are with the scribes and Pharisees, and are concerned with the legal niceties which were their special preserve, the conflict did not remain at that level alone. Both Jewish groups...felt themselves threatened by Jesus in different ways, and so, while normally there was little love lost between them, they found it expedient to close ranks against this common threat...

In view of the disdain which Judaeans felt for the religious 'deviations' of Galilee, it was bound to be an uphill struggle for Jesus, however orthodox, to gain a favourable hearing. The slightest hint of independence of thought, and he could be sure of a very critical reception. To receive a rapturous welcome from Galilean crowds was not the best way to commend his teaching to the Jerusalem authorities.

It is true, too, that Jesus lacked the formal scribal education which in later times qualified a man for the title 'rabbi'...when it came to the practical business of applying the Old Testament law, Jesus refused to be bound by traditional interpretations. His reverence for the Old Testament itself is in striking contrast to his sublime disregard for the elaborate legal system which Jewish tradition had woven round it. A good rabbi would always justify his interpretation by quoting an earlier rabbi, or preferably a whole string of them Not so Jesus: as far as we know he never cited the opinion of another teacher, however venerable, outside the bounds of Scripture...

What precisely was meant by 'keeping the seventh day holy' was a fertile source of scribal debate...Thirty-nine class of forbidden work had been identified, but that is only the beginning, and the subdivisions and qualifications are legion. A broken limb may not be set; you may not cut your finger-nails, or search your clothes for fleas...If fire breaks out, it may not be put out, and you may rescue only enough food for three meals, and as many clothes as you can wer (not carry)...

It is hardly surprising that Jesus, who treated scribal ideas of ritual purity so lightly, was also impatient of this sort of casuistry. Not the he ever questioned the Old Testament command to keep on day holy; it was on the whole approach to how it was to be kept holy that they crossed swords.

The first clash was over his disciples' action in plucking and rubbing ears of corn in their hands to get the grain out to eat on the Sabbath...two of the thirty-nine forbidden acts. Jesus defended their action on two grounds. First, he claimed that 'the Sabbath was made for the good of man; man was not made for the Sabbath'; it was intended to be a blessing, not a burden. Secondly, and this must have enraged the Pharisees even more, he calmly asserted his own authority to lay down the interpretation of the Sabbath law. David had put human need before ritual niceties, and now Jesus claimed a similar authority...

Later clashes over Sabbath regulations (and five are recorded) are all concerned with Jesus' practice of healing sickness when he met it, even if it happened to be the Sabbath...The Mishnah does in fact allow medical care on the Sabbath if, and only if, there is actual danger to life. But Jesus went beyond that, and healed any who came on the Sabbath...

Luke tells us that 'his answer made all his enemies ashamed of themselves, while all the people rejoiced over every wonderful thing that he did'. No-one enjoys being humiliated in public, especially by one whom they regard as a danger to public morals. Jesus was adding insult to injury, and personal revenge was added to righteous indignation as a motive for silencing him.

We have seen that the root of this conflict of Jesus with the scribes over interpretation of the law was his refusal to bow to any authority...Matthew has preserved for us a series of six sayings where Jesus quoted what 'people were told in the past', and followed it by his own sovereign 'But now I tell you...'

...Jesus takes us behind the letter of the law to the more demanding question of what is really the will of God for his people. Sometimes the literal sense of the law is virtually dismissed; always it is, by itself, inadequate. It is easy to see the contrast between this teaching of Jesus and the scribal approach which focuses on the letter of the law, and constantly elaborates it to meet every circumstance.

It is this radical approach to the Old Testament which is responsible for Jesus' conflict with scribal orthodoxy. It is not radical in the sense of being destructive, but in the true sense of the word, going to the roots of the matter, looking for the true spirit and intention of Scripture, and refusing to be content with a merely literalistic legalism...

Typical of Jesus' radical approach is his reply to a sincere question on a stock subject of scribal debate, 'Which commandment is the most important of all?' He replied by quoting two texts, the commands to love God with all your heart, and to love your neighbour as yourself...as far as we know no other rabbi brought them together like this to sum up the basic principles of Old Testament religion. But for Jesus love came first, and if it meant bending, or simply discarding the rules worked out by scribal tradition, so be it...

It is not difficult to see why this attitude of Jesus led to conflict. The parched old wineskins of scribal tradition could not cope with the effervescent power of Jesus' radical interpretation of the law...

We have already seen how Jesus was accused of being in league with the Devil, and how he in turn called his opponents 'hypocrites'...

Anyone who knew the book of Isaiah would recognize the allusion to Isaiah's song about Israel as God's vineyard. 'What, then, will the owner of the vineyard do? asked Jesus. 'He will come and kill those men and turn over the vineyard to other tenants.' The message was obvious, and 'the Jewish leaders tried to arrest Jesus, because they knew that he had told this parable against them'.

Other parables went further, and seemed to suggest that not only the Jewish leaders, but the nation as a whole, were ripe for punishment and rejection. We have seen that Jesus talked of Gentiles coming into the kingdom of God; that was bad enough, but he went further and added the other side of the coin, the rejection of the Jews from the kingdom which they regarded as their exclusive right. They had refused to listen to his appeal for repentance, and they must take the consequences.

Jesus focused this grim message in his prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem itself, the holy city of the Jews, and the very heart of their national existence...

He was charged first with blasphemy on the basis of his claim to be Messiah and Son of God, and then with sedition, claiming to be the king of the very nation he had in fact threatened with destruction! But the formal charges were only the last stage in the process. The real reasons which united the Jewish authorities against Jesus were his threat to the religious system and self-esteem of the Pharisees, and to the political leadership and security of the Sadducees. He was dangerous, and so he was destroyed.
 




Anonymous said:
Yeah, we get it. Women's rights = kill babies on demand. Gay rights = Anti traditional marriage. Environment = Totalitarian government.

I'm glad you're proud... Nobody ask you and nobody cares.
Click to expand...

You know I don't know why, you have to be so sly,
One thing I learned, I don't get what I earn,
But you get your share, though you ain't nowhere,
You get no wiser, but then I despise you,
All The Aces, don't like people who ain't got no faces
 




Anonymous said:
I agree with Smith's words. Just like I agree that the Mona Lisa, The Last Supper and Lady with an Empire are examples of artistic perfection. I will no sooner add to Leonardo's artistic genius than I will add to the genius of Adam Smith's principles.

The problem with morons like you, is you always want to discard the knowledge and wisdom which has preceded you. You think you have some neat and novel new approach... You don't. Your newly branded forms of totalitarianism has all been tried before. They fail. They will always fail. Because at the heart or your philosophy, you ignore the individual. Ultimately, you enslave the individual.

Adam Smith knew that and he has already expressed it very well. To that, I say "ditto".
Click to expand...



"Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged."
 








Anonymous said:
"Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged."
Click to expand...

The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations.
- Adam Smith
 








Anonymous said:
The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations.
- Adam Smith
Click to expand...

Adam Smith never said that “The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations”, as some people who have never read him think. It is hard to think of a less Smithian view – he was the opposite of that quote’s patrician and patronising voice, and had a deep compassion for people who had been unlucky in life.

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/inter...an-the-difference-between-wealth-and-poverty/
 




















Fortune raises up and fortune brings low both the man who fares well and the one who fares badly; and there is no prophet of the future for mortal men. Therefore, CP take down this thread NOW!
 




Top Bottom
Back
Quote