#Login Register
The Vigilant Citizen Forums

Economics - Lies

08-23-2015, 03:29 PM #1
Robert Baird
Status: Offline Posts:914 Likes Received:282

You have heard the slogan "the government that governs least governs best". It is a catchy phrase and you should know anything written about the Physiocrats and Adam Smith as being the first economic school of thought is utter nonsense. The monopolists and oligarchs including the family of Pierre Dupont de Nemours who authored some of the French Physiocratic writings have always understood and managed the Wealth of Nations. His family wrote the Hebrew Bible in 600 BCE and gave his fellow family members, the Benjaminites, the monopoly on usury. Keep this in mind as you read what I have excerpted herewith from a book on the web addressing Smith's book The Wealth of Nations. Or just read the last sentence.

 "The Physiocrats, on their part, clearly laid down and steadily contended that nothing that did not have material existence, or was not produced from land, could be included in the category of the wealth of society. Adam Smith, however, with seeming inadvertence, has fallen in places into the inconsistency of classing personal qualities and obligations as wealth. This is probably attributable to the fact that what it seemed to him possible to accomplish was much less than the Physiocrats aimed at. The task to which he set himself, that in the main of showing the absurdity and impolicy of the mercantile or protective system, was sufficiently difficult to make him comparatively regardless of speculations that led far beyond it. With the disproval of the current notion that the wealth of nations consists of the precious metals, his care as to what is and what is not a part of that wealth relaxed. He went with the Physiocrats in their condemnation of the attempts of governments to check commerce, but stopped both where they had carried the idea of freeing all production from tax or restraint to the point of a practical proposition, and where they had fallen into obvious error. He neither proposed the single tax, nor did he fall into that mistake of declaring agriculture the only productive occupation. That there is a natural order he saw; and that to this natural order our perceptions of justice conform, he also saw. But that involved in this natural order is a provision for the material needs of advancing society he seems never to have seen.
 There are passages in the Wealth of Nations where Adam Smith checks his inquiry with a suddenness that shows an indisposition to venture on ground that the possessing classes would deem dangerous."

 The very term "Physiocrat" is an invention of Pierre Dupont de Nemours. He sold weapons to both sides of all conflicts in his time, before moving his family to Delaware where they continued playing both ends against the middle (Hegelian Dialectic) and benefitting from what became the Military Industrial Complex. I know the serious thinker will see what I quote next meant he wanted no taxes on his income, and he wanted rents on land to carry the full burden of government. What a master-stroke of deceit he achieved when he got economics to follow this path of reasoning - and then came Keynesian nonsense and building weapons which would never be used (Even giving a complete air force to the Russians shortly before saying they were not to be trusted and therefore we must increase military spending during Peacetime.) just to make work.
 "As land is the only source of wealth, then the burden of all taxes ultimately bears down on the landowner. So instead of levying a complicated collection of scattered taxes (which are difficult to administer and can cause temporary distortions), it is most efficient to just go to the root and tax land rents directly.
 However practical many of the Physiocrats' policy measures were, they wrapped their arguments in metaphysical clouds. They differentiated between the ordre naturel (natural order, or the social order dictated by nature's laws) and the ordre positif (positive order, or the social order dictated by human ideals). They charged that social philosophers had gotten both of these mixed up. The ordre positif was wholly about man-made conventions. It was about how society should be organized to conform to some human-constructed ideal. This, they argued, was what the "natural law" and "social contract" philosophers, like Locke and Rousseau, were concerned with. However, there was, the Physiocrats argued, nothing "natural" in them at all -- and so these theories ought to be dumped. In contrast, the ordre naturel were the laws of nature, which were God-given and unalterable by human construct. The believed that the only choice humans had was either to structure their polity, economy and society in conformity with the ordre naturel or to go against it."

 The Physiocrats were a group of French Enlightenment thinkers of the 1760s that .... The term "Physiocracy" itself (introduced by Dupont de Nemours (1767)) ...