What does lit think of this book?
>>7997929
Very entertaining and hilarious. Literally a page turner. Can't wait to read it again.
>>7997929
It's very long and very misread, almost hilariously so.
Tbh I think most people really need to have top notch note taking/organisation skills and a good amount of time to not rush.
The history of its interpretation is frankly weird and a good lesson in how vast swathes of people can be idiots.
>>7997929
I have a degree in Economics and I never read it lol
>>7997929
Btfo'd by Marx
of interest in a historical perspective, very correct considering the time of writing but largely irrelevant to an understanding of economics now
>>7998020
In what other ways is a degree in economics trash?
>>7998040
Like creating and graphing systems of market exchange without taking into account time, space, or firms?
Well then this is the degree for you.
>>7998040
economics as taught today takes a given amount of resources and constructs abstract equations to maximise welfare, deriving the most 'effective' distribution of these predetermined set of resources which have little to no reflection in reality.
A complete departure from Smith's treatment of political economy which sought to show how a system of natural liberty and private property increases a nations wealth.
Dry as hell. Surprisingly more *progressive* than some of his more modern adherents would give it credit for.
>>7997929
I am 400 pages and I find it quite entertaining but mostly from a historical point of view, I picked it up to learn a bit more about pre industrial Europe so I like all the examples he gives.
After reading this bit I have to say I get the impression that 90% of the people who claim to have read it or who praise Adam Smith haven't even touched his book and of the 10% of who did read it half doesn't understand it.
>>7998097
How is it dry?
We should make a thread on /pol/ about him and see how defensive they get
I've got about 200 pages left. It's very long, very readable, occasionally funny, and frequently digressive, often on topics of relatively little interest to a modern reader. Smith is occasionally at odds with himself (usually in places of little import), a product of the book's digressive nature and its stated purpose: to investigate the wealth of nations and to give a coherent, reducible theory of economics.
I don't know much about it's reception and interpretation beyond "the invisible hand," which is a one-off metaphor, the importance of which seems to be greatly overstated (numerous are instances he points out wherein someone acts unconsciously against their interests).
Best evidence that it's likely misread (even more likely not read) is that no one mentions staple foods, which bedrock his entire view of economics.
Aside from length, entirely readable.
>>7998134
That is, *not* to give a reducible grand theory of economics... Of all the typos in all the world...
Smiths whole breakthrough was just that he was the first to fully grasp the significance and delineate the basic characteristics of profit on capital. Investment in fixed-capital and waged-labour marked industrialists off as manufacturers rather than as mere merchants and was the source of all profit which was further distributed in the form of rent and other passive income streams. It's pretty amazing that no one before Smith made such a simple breakthrough.
As Engels states:
>we are dealing here not only with a purely logical process, but with a historical process, and its explanatory reflection in thought, the logical pursuance of its inner connections
Why did profit only begin to appear as an income uniquely associated with a single class not until the third quarter of the 18th century? Why is it that modern economists are not capable of understanding that there's a big difference between funding productive/useful activities and just purchasing existing assets to milk them for rent/interest/dividends/capital gains?
Try to understand Smiths ideological predispositions and read all the portions where Smith talks about "dead stock" very carefully:
https://www.google.ca/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.marxists.org%2Freference%2Farchive%2Fsmith-adam%2F+"dead+stock"
Also read these parts carefully:
Conclusion [summary on rent] of Book I:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch11c-3.htm
Smith contra the physiocrats in Book IV:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book04/ch09.htm
In Chapter III of Book 5, where he talks about "dead stock" [goldbugs]
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book05/ch03-3.htm
neo-liberal trash
