Adam Smith in 1776 Showed Rush Limbaugh, Not the Pope, to be the Real Clown

rush_limbaugh dark

According to Rush Limbaugh and many other conservatives, Pope Francis is a Marxist. He must be, or he would not criticize capitalism.

Limbaugh has hurled invective after invective at the Pope, saying that Time Magazine named the Pope Man Of The Year “Simply because he attacks capitalism and ticks me off,” and complained that the Pope “doesn’t even disguise” his Marxist beliefs with talk of man-made climate change.

Now that Francis has said unbridled capitalism is the “dung of the devil” and a new form of colonialism, Rush has responded by calling the Pope a “clown”:

Pope Francis is in Bolivia, and he has come out with another one of his anti-capitalism remarks. He said…that unfettered capitalism is the devil’s dung. Now in the first place, would somebody find for me anywhere on this planet where there is, at this very moment, unfettered capitalism taking place? You can’t, because there isn’t. And I would go so far as to say that the United States doesn’t even have half-baked capitalism going on right now. But unfettered? What is unfettered?


What is this unfettered capitalism? It’s just more bastardization of language to denigrate the greatest economic system yet devised that creates prosperity for the most and opportunity for everybody. And because it does that, it must be reviled, it must be impugned, it must be destroyed. So you put the word ‘unfettered’ in front of it. And what that means is ‘unregulated’ because you know capitalism is so unfair that it has to be regulated in order to make sure the rich just don’t steal everything…there isn’t any unfettered capitalism and there hasn’t been any unfettered capitalism.

Limbaugh says capitalism isn’t why the United States is “in a quagmire” or “in a malaise,” that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are why the country is “stagnating right now.” Never mind that the economy has been recovering since Obama took office in 2008, and that it was unregulated capitalism that destroyed the economy in the first place.

Yet Limbaugh insisted,

My point is that Obama is not a capitalist. This country’s economy is not slowed down because of capitalism. The closest we’ve had to the capitalism that the Pope and these clowns are talking about is the Reagan years and looked what happened. Look at the economic boom that last practically 20 years!

This would be the same Reagan who raised taxes 11 times and grew the size of government and increased military spending while cutting non-defense discretionary spending, the same Reagan who tripled the federal budget deficit. For all Limbaugh’s blustering, Obama is more of a fiscal conservative than his hero Reagan.

Reagan aside, you no doubt notice a common conservative trend here, the ad hominem attack, that is, attacking not the issue at hand, or the argument made, but the person uttering it. This is because, as always, there is no argument to be made against the Pope’s statements either about climate change or capitalism.

In all this, the Pope is not saying anything, however, that has not already been said, and not by Karl Marx, but by Adam Smith, author of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), the first modern work on economics. As Wikipedia will tell you, “Smith laid the foundations of classical free market economic theory.”

A natural-born Republican right? That’s what Republicans want you to believe. After all, Margaret Thatcher kept a copy in her handbag. But not so fast.

Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations that “[M]an has almost constant need for the help of his brethren,” which immediately contrasts him with the Republican Ayn Randian ideal of the rugged, self-reliant individual who takes personal responsibility for all his actions (unless he is a corporation, of course).

Republicans who have no problem ignoring what Jesus actually said, have no problem ignoring the fact that before The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), in which he stressed the natural compassion and empathy of human beings for one another:

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner. That we often derive sorrow from the sorrows of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it; for this sentiment, like all the other original passions of human nature, is by no means confined to the virtuous or the humane, though they perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite sensibility. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it.

While the mighty capitalists of the Gilded Age worshiped themselves as the driving force of wealth, Smith had a thought for the working man.

Of course, Smith was writing on the cusp of the Industrial Age, before all its evils became apparent, but there was enough evil even then for him to write in The Theory of Moral Sentiments that of the “disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition.”

He addressed the problem in Wealth of Nations as well:

But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest, or of understanding its connexion with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and less regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on, and supported by his employers, not for his, but for their own particular purposes.

It is easy enough to surmise from this his reaction to the evils of the Gilded Age, which Republicans are endeavoring to unleash upon the working class once more.

It is ironic that Smith is held by conservatives to be a patron saint of capitalism, because he wrote in warning of unregulated capitalism, that business interests were opposed to the public interest:

The interest of the dealers [referring to stock owners, manufacturers, and merchants], however, in any particular branch of trade or manufacture, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, and absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens.

Republicans condemn taxation but as Smith himself says, corporations are essentially taxing the citizens through their profits. For this reason, he would certainly have never, as Republicans have done, suggested that businesses be allowed to regulate themselves. Echoing the old Roman adage, Let the Buyer Beware, he writes:

The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

We have lived to see corporations become people. We have seen corporations buy our government. Smith, who had first-hand experience of the powerful, too-big-to-fail and formerly unregulated East India Company, whose machinations and troubles were instrumental in bringing about the Boston Tea Party,* saw the dangers too, warning that powerful monopolies “intimidate the legislature.”

A reading of Adam Smith shows who is the real clown here, and it is not the Pope, or President Obama, but Rush Limbaugh himself.


* Lord North’s East India Tea Act (1773), eliminated middlemen and allowed direct sales by the East India Company to America. It also eliminated duties on tea exports from England but not import duties on the American side of the equation (the Townsend Duties). These steps would lower the price of tea in America while simultaneously driving up sales for the East India Company, and have the much-desired outcome of forcing tacit agreement by the colonists of Parliament’s right to tax them. The colonists weren’t fooled, with the results we all know so well.

20 Replies to “Adam Smith in 1776 Showed Rush Limbaugh, Not the Pope, to be the Real Clown”

  1. And Rush Limbaugh, has never actually run his own business, and for that matter- never actually had to work an honest day’s work either.

    We all do better, when we all do better.

    But to the pukes of the Conservatives- they feel that they can only do better- when they’ve taken away someone else’s livelihood.

  2. Someone forgot to piss on and then “flush” (100% “human-waste” matter) Rush Limbaugh straight down the toilet and into the deepest “sewers” of “Hell” where he really belongs. He is a filthy, depraved, sick, mentally-ill, asshole. Who actually does “STINK TO HIGH HEAVEN”!!! In my opinion.

  3. “[M]an has almost constant need for the help of his brethren,” – Adam Smith, WEALTH OF NATIONS

    As a Econ major and student of the dark science and someone who has actually READ Wealth of Nations – the hard cover book is one of my prized possessions along with a copy of Das Capital – I’ve been telling people this for years.

    I have always been and continue to be a proponent of Capitalism as the best economic system but like Smith and anyone who has read him, I also understand that unfettered, uncontrolled Capitalism leads to plutocracy and THAT is what we have today in this country.

    Maybe if clowns like Limbaugh and all those right wing conservatives who think they know the basics of capitalism actually read Smith or even took an Macro Econ course or better yet a history of econ theory course, they would actually understand the limitations of Capitalism… :-(

  4. Capitalism, like Libertarianism, is a theory that only works in a small market ( 50 – 200 persons )…where everyone knows one another. Then, the dishonest business person can be avoided, and the liar is not believed.
    Anything more than that, because of lack of information, greed and avarice take over. Competition causes devaluing of goods and services, or monopoly and cartels proliferate, creating very innefficient economies. Unfettered capitalism then is like a cancer, and eventually fails …kills the host.

    Steinbeck’s “The Pearl” makes a good illustration.

  5. The Wealth Of Nations is no endorsement of economic greed, as sometimes caricatured. Self-interest may drive the economy, but that is a force for good – provided there is genuinely open competition and no coercion. And it is the poor that economic and social freedom benefits most.

    As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.

    The propensity to truck, barter and exchange one thing for another is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals.

    It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

    Labour was the first price, the original purchase – money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased.

    With the greater part of rich people, the ch…

  6. Free Market Capitalist: Someone who, if given the means and opportunity, would take control of the global atmospheric oxygen supply … and then charge humanity usage fees for breathing.

    Capitalism can be an important component of our economic structure, because it sometimes promotes competition which leads to innovation.
    But the inherent danger of unbridled, unregulated capitalism is that it leaves the consumer open to abuse by a self-regulating private sector in which the only protection available is the motto: buyer beware.

    Bottom line: for many self-proclaimed American capitalists (read “profiteers”), patriotism has more to do with GREEN than it does red, white, and blue.

  7. Rush Limbaugh has a disease called ” everybody’s wrong but me”. This man is so evil and hateful, he would even hate his self if he wasn’t so arrogant. He truly believes he has all the answers when in reality he offers the world nothing. And that makes him nothing, absolutely nothing.

  8. The ‘religious right wing’ are truly not Christians! Who were the first socialists?Surely the book of the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament of the Bible describes how they pooled their resources to care for their poor brrthren. – widows and orphans!!! Socialism is not the problem.Rather, as the Pope says, capitalism is truly the Devil’s dung! No true Christian would ever support untramelled capitalism.

  9. I imagine the Pope is beside himself that the irrelevant, drug using, lie spewing fat man thinks the Pope is a clown. I am sure that Rush, like most conservative “Christians” is very pro Pope unless he disagrees with any part of their ultra conservative, hateful, arrogant, ignorant, misogynistic, greedy and heartless political agenda. Then, that “clown” can buzz off.

  10. Here are some more:

    “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the 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 labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged.” (The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter VIII, p.94)

    “Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.” (The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter IX, p.117)

    “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to…

  11. None of these right wing buffoons have obviously read the book, just like they have never read the New Testament, either. It really offends me that creatures like rush, coulter, cruz, walker, and others of their ilk dare to call themselves Christians.

  12. Smith wrote a companion book to his Wealth of Nations called the Theory of Moral Sentiments which he considered the more important work. I suggest reading it. It’s all about dealing fairly and morally with your fellow man. But of course the ignorant thieves never mention this book.

  13. Adam Smith also wrote:

    “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 labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.” (Wealth of Nations, Book 1, chapter 8)

    This is not the capitalism Republicans think of when they attempt to misappropriate Adam Smith. Smith is advocating here what we would call a living wage today.

  14. We must all realize that Rush is fighting for his public life right now. He will say anything, do anything to gain attention,and to try to recoup what he has lost and is continuing to lose. I believe this is evidence of a sick mind … however, I cannot find pity in my heart for a man who has made a career of preaching such hate, and of maligning others. He has no talent except that, if you can call it that. To speak of the Pope in such a manner was beyond anything he has done in the past (and I am not Catholic). I just hope that he loses the rest of his sponsors very soon so that he will have no choice but to seek employment somewhere else. He promised to move to Puerto Rico, but I don’t think they want him, either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.