An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
Where to buy An Inquiry into the Scenery and Causes of the Wealth of Nations books online?
Product Description
No book has done more to instruct, enlighten, and inform conservatives about economics than Adam Smith’s undisputed classic.
Buy Cheap An Inquiry into the Scenery and Causes of the Wealth of Nations Online
Related posts:
Fantastic study material – very hard read, but a must read that should be taught in high school.
Buy this if you support free trade, less government, and the American dream. Beware, this books represents everything a liberal opposes, ideals which are deeply despised by persons who support liberal gods like Barak Hussein Obama and Miss H. Rodham.
Reader’s Rating: 5 / 5
A fleeting note for persons about to enter into the world of Adam Smith – Take time to examine Book V, parts I-III. You’ll notice that Smith, reasonably contrary to his Laisse-faire proponants, is elucidating the beginnings of Keynes, rather than the Milton Freeman view. “The duty of the sovereign or commonwealth is that of erecting and maintaining persons public institutions and persons public works, which…[are] of such a scenery, that the profit could never repay the expanse to any individual or tiny number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or tiny number of individuals should erect or maintain.” (Smith, Adam The Wealth of Nations, pg. 681)
Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
I am going to refer to the original text version written by Adam Smith: This was absolutely a brutal read; but, it was more or less a paradox described as painfully appealing. The mind of Adam Smith is incredible, and I encourage an interested reader to duke it out as you’ll most certainly come out of the book more informed. I would recommend Wealth of Nations to anyone who has a mild interest in Economics. Brian Oley
Reader’s Rating: 4 / 5
The greek tradition establish virtue in the pursuit of rational self interest. That tradition later establish expression in Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” in which is posited a “rational self-interest” operating as an “invisible hand” upon “free markets”. Recent accounting crimes and corporate scandals, but, amount to enormous empirical evidence that “laissez faire” capitalism is a myth and the “invisible hand” is mere “wishful thinking”.
It is obvious that there is no “invisible hand” which militates against crooks, charlatans, and quick buck artists now seen to have firmly ensconced themselves as much in the board rooms as among grubby glide-by-nighters.
Markets left to their own devices trend toward oligopoly in which oligarchs effect political plutocracy through the exercise of sheer political muscle, intimidation, fraud, and outright bribery.
If there is an “invisible hand”, it has never moderated the rich and powerful. If a ruling cabal is to be moderated it must be done by political action.
This is less a criticism of Smith himself than of modern economic conservatives and/or ’supply-siders’ who find in Smith –ex post facto –a rationalization for rapacious and monopolistic behavior. Smith is no more to be faulted for this than Darwin should be faulted for the extremes of “Social Darwinism” –neither Social nor Darwin. “Social Darwinists” are most regularly linked with the age of the Robber Barons, providing them an ideological bias that justifies all manner of corporate crookedness and grubby practices.
To his credit, Smith himself feared the rise of monopoly power –a dread which modern conservative commentary either does not know or omits entirely.
The picture is intricate, but by Immanuel Kant who assailed the pursuit of self interest in favor of “excellent in and of itself” –a “categorical imperative”. It is a moral standard that no one, of course, can live up to. Nevertheless, Kant became the additional fantastic influence upon American conservative thought –though I cannot give most contemporary conservatives credit for having really read Kant or, for that matter, understanding him.
Yet –Kant may be establish lurking beneath the ideological surface of the extreme right-wing and the religious right which seeks to impose upon us a “transcendental” reality and morality whether we like it or not.
It is unfortunate that Kant himself defined this “transcendent reality” –which he calls the noumena –as being indecipherable. If follows, by definition, that one cannot make meaningful statements about it, but that has not kept righteous ideologues from deducing from this “indecipherable” value judgments and imposing persons values judgments on others. By definition, nothing meaningful can be said about whatever is “indecipherable”!
We are agreed a choice of two mutually exclusive alternatives: “egocentricity” or “selfless transcendentalism”. Neither position, but, is entirely right and neither is completely understood even by the conservative mentality that espouses them. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is no more valid than Laffer’s “trickle down” theory and it is highly doubtful that even Kant lived up to his own moral dictum –though I credit Kant with sincerity but doubt it among his followers. I rather reflect that “mankind” is neither entirely selfish or entirely selfless.
The truth is most likely establish in the middle. The work of mathematician John Nash, celebrated of late in the motion picture “A Gorgeous Mind”, wrote a brilliant paper on “binding agreements” that casts grave doubts upon many “conservative” fables, shibboleths, and fairy tales –including persons whose origins lie in “mutually exclusive” intellectual traditions. Like Patton surrounded on one side by Russians and the additional by Nazis, it attacks in both directions at once.
Reader’s Rating: 2 / 5
I am going to refer to the original text version written by Adam Smith: This was absolutely a brutal read; but, it was more or less a paradox described as painfully appealing. The mind of Adam Smith is incredible, and I encourage an interested reader to duke it out as you’ll most certainly come out of the book more informed. I would recommend Wealth of Nations to anyone who has a mild interest in Economics. Brian Oley
Reader’s Rating: 4 / 5