> Making money without working was frought upon in Smith days So what? Why would it automatically matter if Smith thought x y z? People were wrong about a grea

> Making money without working was frought upon in Smith days So what? Why would it automatically matter if Smith thought x y z? People were wrong about a great many things back then, including in the realm of morality. Aristotle was wrong about a lot of things. Plato was wrong about a lot of things. They come across as mystical morons in hindsight. Freud was wrong about a lot of things. Should it be surprising for Smith to be wrong about a lot of things? Of course not. It's entirely moral to make money off of your money with minimum effort. For example having retirement capital that consists of a low cost S&P 500 index fund. It is not parasitic, even if Adam Smith incorrectly might think so. Were he alive today and were he to believe such to be immoral, his morality would be irrational, anti-human and plainly askew. The notion of not earning money on your money because it'd be immoral or parasitic, is comically dumb. It's about as regressive as burning witches. It's morally, philosophically and functionally identical to saying you shouldn't repetitively yield from land (ie farming is immoral), that you shouldn't amplify your physical labor with tools, and forbid you repetitively yield from land with heavily automated machinery, much less machinery that you use more than once (it just keeps producing a return on investment from the deployed capital, a horrible sin!). And then there's saving money to buy things in bulk on greater discount. How dare anyone yield additional money from their immoral hoard of existing money.