<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Prosperity or poverty. Smith vs Marx
Review: Adam Smith like Marx sees changes in the economic system as a logical, inevitable sequence of events. For example the power of the landed aristocracy declined as a consequence of the increasing importance of the towns. Good government was a result of this decline as people that had worked on the estates in conditions close to slavery moved to cities where they had considerable freedom. The difference between Marx and Smith is that Smith considered all of these changes leading to steady improvements whereas Marx considered the results of capitalism and industrialisation and urbanisation disastrous. Marx living about one hundred years later than Smith. The system had not produced wealth for all as Smith foresaw. Smith believed that if governments would refrain from interfering in the economy prosperity would increase for all. Marx considered that a revolution whereby the capitalist class would be eliminated and private property is abolished a necessary consequence of the exploitation of the workers. Smith believed the opposite in that private property was the main driving force for progress. Their analysis of the historical development looking at it now shows many serious mistakes. However many more of the ideas of Adam Smith are still valid in hindsight than those of Marx. Somewhat surprising both being persons with interest in morality do not ascribe any importance to that subject. Both are imprisoned by the concept that "mechanical" or systemic changes in society can explain changes in the economic system. Many economists to day still fall in the same trap. They do not believe that moral standards can play an important role in the development of economic system. They therefore typically reject new developments such as "socially responsible investing ". Like "Capital" of Marx, the "Wealth of Nations" presents many interesting facts about for example the near slavery conditions in the large agricultural estates throughout Europe. This information is a good antidote to the romantics that believe conditions in the countryside in the past were very pleasant. The Wealth of Nations is lucidly written and shows quite clearly the dependence of wealthy creation on essential but minimal government.
Rating:
Summary: Pragmatic
Review: Given the apotheosis of Mr. Smith in various market-fundamentalist circles, I expected a work saturated in ideology prior to reading. Being prejudiced by selective citations in the economic literature, it turned out I was in error.Conservatives and libertarians will ultimately be infatuated with this monumental achievement. However, to give skeptical lefties a taste of what lies within, here are a few brief quotations-- Book five is loaded with instances calling for government intervention. Take education--this line of thought was reiterated a few decades later by Tocqueville: "In the progress of the division of labor...the man whose life is spent in performing a few simple operations ... has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention ... He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become." twon bk5 ch1 Marxists will dig this: "Labor alone, therefore, never varying in its own value, is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only." twon bk1 ch5 Smith is verbose, sometimes superfluous, but unequivocally took a fantastic step forward for the "science" of economics. A must read, regardless of one's ideology.
Rating:
Summary: A Winner!
Review: This book is a classic of economic thought!
<< 1 >>
| 
