Review - The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

This book has aged far better than the Communist Manifesto, both in terms of the applicability of the theories found therein, and in terms of the respect with which it is had by the general population.  However, having read it, I find the general application of anarchy libertarianism to be functionally hilarious.  Smith neither advocates nor evidences for the kind of magical 'free market' thinking espoused by today's captains of industry.

What he does do, is show with stunning thoroughness, the ripple effects of limits by the state on resources that are artificially placed or by private individuals in such a state or by circumstances.  He does indeed show the nature of a TRUE free market, which is allowed to operate on its own and show the historical real world examples that allow one nation to prosper and another to perish.

The level of research he does is also fascinating, especially understanding that he lived in an age which required months of travel and had no form of instantaneous communication.  To know all of the things he did about the American colonies, China, India etc, he had to talk with people who had been there or travel there himself.  It is understandable that it took him as long to write it as he did.

Having said that, Smith himself was quite the philosopher and was a good and charitable man.  Nothing at all like many of capitalism's more ardent defenders in this day in age.  Explain to me, upon reading this book, how the CEO of a cooperation, as an agent of that cooperation is able to justify an 8000% ROI that is sufficiently greater than the base salary man below him?

Smith talks at great lengths about the value of having a skilled labor force and a middle class which has a lot of money.  In fact, he actually shows the damage of stratification for locking up capital in silly ways.  When I read "The Wealth of Nations" I certainly don't picture Ronald Reagan and if I do, I DEFINITELY don't picture George W. Bush and tax cuts.  The dangers of deficits are certain but the concept of a non gold based currency is post Smith.

At some point, I think economics moves beyond the 19th century, and while I think his comments on the nature of being and the value of wages and production are astoundingly insightful for his time, much of which is still applicable to today, I also think there have been many fundamental shifts since then, including such radical notions that women can vote, slavery is a bad idea, black people are not an inferior race etc.  I say this not to imply that Mr. Smith should be faulted for advancing such ideas (he assuredly does not) but rather had these new technologies and ideas existed at his time, his thorough and universal work would certainly have incorporated them.

Mr. Smith is amazing.  His so called 'disciples' are not.  There some solid ideas in this work, but it should be regarded as 'holy' no more than that other 200 year old document, 'the constitution.'