4 ms·

Indeed I suspect a great number of people who scream on TV never actually read The Wealth of Nations or at least not this passage: "It is but equity...that the

Indeed I suspect a great number of people who scream on TV never actually read The Wealth of Nations or at least not this passage: "It is but equity...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."

btilly 10y ago
The Wealth of Nations should be understood as the attempt of someone whose cultural tendencies (from Scotland) were socialist, to explain the wealth of a rabidly free market society (England). Nobody from inside of England could have written the book - it would be like a fish trying to explain water. But his underlying sympathies emerge in numerous places.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Any particular examples? Is this your interpretation or based on Smithian scholarship? I've studied a fair bit of that and not run across this particular view.
  - btilly 10y ago
    That's a personal interpretation based on my knowledge of the times, ongoing economic changes, and the cultures involved. Smith was born not long after England (whose per capita wealth was around 5x that of Scotland) took over Scotland. He lived during a period where England was building a worldwide trading empire, Scotland was benefiting from exposure to England, and the Industrial Revolution was just starting. Oh right, and two civil wars (the Jacobite rebellions) about whether Scotland wished to continued to be united with England. A definite intellectual challenge for the Scots of the day was how it was that England, in every way seemingly worse than themselves, should be the ones in charge. Smith provided part of the answer.
    - JetSetWilly 10y ago
      This is completely inaccurate. England did not "take over" Scotland. There was no invasion or conquest, as in Ireland. The two countries voluntarily merged, scotland was represented in the British parliament and so on. The Wealth of Nations is not weitten about England. Smith was describing the society around him, in Scotland, many of the examples given in the book are directly taken from his everyday observations in the central belt of Scotland. At that time Scotland was in a tumult of intellectual and socialrevolution. Smith coukd look around and see the beginnings of an industrial society on his doorstep. A better explanation for why Smith and other enlightenment figures were in scotland and not so much England would be local cultural factors, such as scottish presbytereanism making for an incredibly high literacy rate in scotland as compared to england, or the great abundance of universities in scotland compared to England.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Interesting, but really not consistent with either Smith's own writings or multiple biographies. Dugald Stewart's memorial is among the shorter versions, if you care to compare notes. Others are John Rae (1895), Edwin Cannen (1896), Francis Wrigley Hirst (~1910), Bagehot, and Emma Rothschild (various, ~1970s to present).
- pjc50 10y ago
  The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776. Marx was born in 1818. Calling Smith "socialist" implies he had a time machine.
  - GFischer 10y ago
    "Socialism" is one of those nebulous words. Most modern socialists don't think the word comes from or implies Marxism. Also, Wikipedia: The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies that originated amid the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 1700s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    Marx did not invent socialism.
    - edblarney 10y ago
      Sure, but I don't think issues such as 'the socialization of the means of production' existed in the 18th century.
      - CalChris 10y ago
        Adam Smith favored progressive taxation. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/adam-smith-and-progressive-taxation https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/adam-smith-and-p...
        edblarney 10y ago
        I'm well aware. Progressive taxation is not socialism. Moreover, in his day, common taxes were very, very low. Nobody had ever conceived of 20% 50% 60% taxation. The plebes would riot with only a few % tax hike. The USA was born out of a tax revolt of a measely few % that was frankly needed, for the protection of their own trade.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  So, that makes his statement wrong? I don't really see getting a portion of your own labor sufficient enough for survival as socialism.
- edblarney 10y ago
  The Wealth of Nations was not written by a 'socialist' by any means. It describes Supply and Demand in a mechanical way, illustrates the power of comparative value, the 'invisible hand' etc.. Smith was a Ethicist and a heavy duty Christian, and so he also realized how the system could be imbalanced, and definitely took the concerns of the plebes to heart etc.. But by no means was this a social treatise, or an attempt to validate social theory or 'socialism' (which didn't really exist). And I think your comment about Scotland/UK is not true at all. The 'Supply and Demand' bit that Krugman said 'all econs agree on' is really from Adam Smith. Marx basically evaluated that in the context of the fact that some small group apparently had all the capital, while others had none, which creates an inherent power/class struggle and so it turns into a political issue. Smith and Marx probably would have agreed on 'the problem' though almost surely not the solution :)
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    This was always my understanding. I am a free market proponent, but a Adam Smith style free market proponent. In that I believe in a market that is actually free, not one with thickets of patents, generous subsidies for corporations, and bailouts while all at the same time a laissez-faire stance on workers rights. You don't get to scream free market while cutting wages and then cry for regulation because a union committed an "illegal strike", or an important worker failed to give you 2 weeks notice and is headed to your direct competitor with knowledge of "your clients". Nobody owns a worker or client in a true free market system. I've always thought the problem with the major economic systems isn't that either of them is inherently flawed, just that they haven't really even been implemented in a large enough scale for any decent period of time. In America we pay socialist taxes and get capitalist benefits, that's the problem. We have to pick one and commit to it.
    - edblarney 10y ago
      Regulations and taxation are essential. There used to be a 'free market' it was called 'feudalism'. Not quite, but almost. If you believe in 'Adam Smith' then you understand under a totally free system, one person would end up with all the wealth. Adam Smith was not a libertarian, or a 'laissez faire' kind of dude. He was an Ethicist and heavy duty Christian and to him capitalism was a moral issue. Unlike the 'Chicago School' and Libertarian types who really state that corps exist for the shareholders, that's it, end of story. As noted above, Smith invented progressive taxation. Get this - do you know what Smith said the #1 quality of a CEO is? Get this: 'Benevolence' Not something you'd hear too often in America. Onerous regulation is obviously a problem, and wasted taxation inefficient government is also a problem. But there's no doubt they have to exist. There's a 99.9% chance you'd be a serf were there to be a truly free and open, 'laissez faire' market. You wouldn't even have a chance at going to a good Uni. You know Trump's son-in-law, Kushner? He only got into Harvard after his parents gave $2.5M to the school. Maybe 1/3 Harvard students buy they way in. In a totally capitalist system, 100% of top spots would be 'bought' - industrialists want to ensure their legacy, and that their kids get into the top schools, and that would guarantee the longevity of their Empire. Anyhow, that taxes can be too high and spent inefficiently does not mean they should not exit.

btilly 10y ago

The Wealth of Nations should be understood as the attempt of someone whose cultural tendencies (from Scotland) were socialist, to explain the wealth of a rabidly free market society (England). Nobody from inside of England could have written the book - it would be like a fish trying to explain water. But his underlying sympathies emerge in numerous places.

dredmorbius 10y ago
Any particular examples? Is this your interpretation or based on Smithian scholarship? I've studied a fair bit of that and not run across this particular view.
- btilly 10y ago
  That's a personal interpretation based on my knowledge of the times, ongoing economic changes, and the cultures involved. Smith was born not long after England (whose per capita wealth was around 5x that of Scotland) took over Scotland. He lived during a period where England was building a worldwide trading empire, Scotland was benefiting from exposure to England, and the Industrial Revolution was just starting. Oh right, and two civil wars (the Jacobite rebellions) about whether Scotland wished to continued to be united with England. A definite intellectual challenge for the Scots of the day was how it was that England, in every way seemingly worse than themselves, should be the ones in charge. Smith provided part of the answer.
  - JetSetWilly 10y ago
    This is completely inaccurate. England did not "take over" Scotland. There was no invasion or conquest, as in Ireland. The two countries voluntarily merged, scotland was represented in the British parliament and so on. The Wealth of Nations is not weitten about England. Smith was describing the society around him, in Scotland, many of the examples given in the book are directly taken from his everyday observations in the central belt of Scotland. At that time Scotland was in a tumult of intellectual and socialrevolution. Smith coukd look around and see the beginnings of an industrial society on his doorstep. A better explanation for why Smith and other enlightenment figures were in scotland and not so much England would be local cultural factors, such as scottish presbytereanism making for an incredibly high literacy rate in scotland as compared to england, or the great abundance of universities in scotland compared to England.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Interesting, but really not consistent with either Smith's own writings or multiple biographies. Dugald Stewart's memorial is among the shorter versions, if you care to compare notes. Others are John Rae (1895), Edwin Cannen (1896), Francis Wrigley Hirst (~1910), Bagehot, and Emma Rothschild (various, ~1970s to present).
pjc50 10y ago
The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776. Marx was born in 1818. Calling Smith "socialist" implies he had a time machine.
- GFischer 10y ago
  "Socialism" is one of those nebulous words. Most modern socialists don't think the word comes from or implies Marxism. Also, Wikipedia: The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies that originated amid the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 1700s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  Marx did not invent socialism.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    Sure, but I don't think issues such as 'the socialization of the means of production' existed in the 18th century.
    - CalChris 10y ago
      Adam Smith favored progressive taxation. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/adam-smith-and-progressive-taxation https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/adam-smith-and-p...
      - edblarney 10y ago
        I'm well aware. Progressive taxation is not socialism. Moreover, in his day, common taxes were very, very low. Nobody had ever conceived of 20% 50% 60% taxation. The plebes would riot with only a few % tax hike. The USA was born out of a tax revolt of a measely few % that was frankly needed, for the protection of their own trade.
cmdrfred 10y ago
So, that makes his statement wrong? I don't really see getting a portion of your own labor sufficient enough for survival as socialism.
edblarney 10y ago
The Wealth of Nations was not written by a 'socialist' by any means. It describes Supply and Demand in a mechanical way, illustrates the power of comparative value, the 'invisible hand' etc.. Smith was a Ethicist and a heavy duty Christian, and so he also realized how the system could be imbalanced, and definitely took the concerns of the plebes to heart etc.. But by no means was this a social treatise, or an attempt to validate social theory or 'socialism' (which didn't really exist). And I think your comment about Scotland/UK is not true at all. The 'Supply and Demand' bit that Krugman said 'all econs agree on' is really from Adam Smith. Marx basically evaluated that in the context of the fact that some small group apparently had all the capital, while others had none, which creates an inherent power/class struggle and so it turns into a political issue. Smith and Marx probably would have agreed on 'the problem' though almost surely not the solution :)
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  This was always my understanding. I am a free market proponent, but a Adam Smith style free market proponent. In that I believe in a market that is actually free, not one with thickets of patents, generous subsidies for corporations, and bailouts while all at the same time a laissez-faire stance on workers rights. You don't get to scream free market while cutting wages and then cry for regulation because a union committed an "illegal strike", or an important worker failed to give you 2 weeks notice and is headed to your direct competitor with knowledge of "your clients". Nobody owns a worker or client in a true free market system. I've always thought the problem with the major economic systems isn't that either of them is inherently flawed, just that they haven't really even been implemented in a large enough scale for any decent period of time. In America we pay socialist taxes and get capitalist benefits, that's the problem. We have to pick one and commit to it.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    Regulations and taxation are essential. There used to be a 'free market' it was called 'feudalism'. Not quite, but almost. If you believe in 'Adam Smith' then you understand under a totally free system, one person would end up with all the wealth. Adam Smith was not a libertarian, or a 'laissez faire' kind of dude. He was an Ethicist and heavy duty Christian and to him capitalism was a moral issue. Unlike the 'Chicago School' and Libertarian types who really state that corps exist for the shareholders, that's it, end of story. As noted above, Smith invented progressive taxation. Get this - do you know what Smith said the #1 quality of a CEO is? Get this: 'Benevolence' Not something you'd hear too often in America. Onerous regulation is obviously a problem, and wasted taxation inefficient government is also a problem. But there's no doubt they have to exist. There's a 99.9% chance you'd be a serf were there to be a truly free and open, 'laissez faire' market. You wouldn't even have a chance at going to a good Uni. You know Trump's son-in-law, Kushner? He only got into Harvard after his parents gave $2.5M to the school. Maybe 1/3 Harvard students buy they way in. In a totally capitalist system, 100% of top spots would be 'bought' - industrialists want to ensure their legacy, and that their kids get into the top schools, and that would guarantee the longevity of their Empire. Anyhow, that taxes can be too high and spent inefficiently does not mean they should not exit.