What do you think?
Rate this book
The Wealth of Nations: A Selected Edition for the Contemporary Reader
Published in 1778, The Wealth of Nations was the first book on economics to catch the public's attention. It provides a recipe for national prosperity that has not been bettered since, based on small government and the freedom of citizens to act in their best interests. It reassuringly assumes no knowledge of its subject, and over 200 years on still provides valuable lessons on the fundamentals of economics. This deluxe, selected edition is a stylish keepsake from the Capstone Classics series.
This edition includes: An abridged selection of all 5 books for the contemporary readerAn original commentary offering new research and analysis by classic literature guru Tom Butler-Bowdon A biography and chronology of Adam Smith's life and the events surrounding the original publication of the work
Today, The Wealth of Nations is still essential reading for any business or self-development library, reminding us that it is the ingenuity and drive of people, not governments, that remains the source of personal, national and global prosperity.
416 pages, Kindle Edition
Published October 12, 2010
About the author
Adam Smith
1,422 books2,355 followersFor other authors of this name, see Adam Smith.
Adam Smith FRSA FRS FRSE was a Scottish philosopher and economist who was a pioneer in thinking on political economy and a key figure during the Scottish Enlightenment. He wrote two classic works, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The latter, often abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations , is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work that treats economics as a comprehensive system and as an academic discipline.
Authorities recorded his baptism on 16 June 1723 at Kirkcaldy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
Adam Smith FRSA FRS FRSE was a Scottish philosopher and economist who was a pioneer in thinking on political economy and a key figure during the Scottish Enlightenment. He wrote two classic works, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The latter, often abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations , is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work that treats economics as a comprehensive system and as an academic discipline.
Authorities recorded his baptism on 16 June 1723 at Kirkcaldy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
November 26, 2020
I hate not finishing books, in fact, it makes me feel guilty. However, this edition of The Wealth of Nations, edited by the Adam Smith Institute, and published by Capstone Classics, is dreadful! Not only is the editor's introduction to the text irritating, but the body of the text, Adam Smith's work, is abridged very poorly. Huge, and very significant sections of the text are removed (in a way which I can only assume would make ASI's ideological position) which gives the reader a very skewed impression of the text. I think I will return to this text either when I can be bothered wading through this ruined version, or when I procure a better version.
Please do NOT buy this version of the text!
Please do NOT buy this version of the text!
December 2, 2024
Not the biggest fan/supporter of Adam Smith's ideas from an economics perspective; however, they're surely interesting to read about!
March 14, 2021
What slog, and that reading the 350 page abridged version, can’t imagine reading all 950 pages of the full original. That being said this book has so many good parts, I took notes throughout the whole book. You can really tell reading this book how Adam Smith laid the groundwork for modern economics.
February 7, 2018
The Wealth of Nations is considered a holy book for economists, giving us insights on the basics and most important notions in economics. I mean, it's Adam Smith for God's sake!
To start, I fairly enjoyed the language and the adept expertise with which Mr. Smith forged his sentences and used his skills to portray his ideas. I also enjoyed the main points behind the economic ideas I came to study and familiarize myself with during my university years such as the concept of rent, revenues, commerce and trade, the duties of the sovereign and how the administration should levy taxes and collect revenues to help with providing such public services and goods. In short, the language and concepts were well laid out and enjoyable to get to know.
But the above mentioned is also the problem with this book. The language was too prolonged and every sentence practically repeated the one before it. Adam Smith could be saying one idea, describing it and explaining its basis over 20 pages while I actually got the jist of it in the first two. In some parts of the book, the complexity with which he writes lets you lose sight of what he wanted to say, egging you on to skip a few lines to the next idea. As for his economic ideas, well, they were written in a time where monarchies and empires ruled the Earth so most of what he wrote about does not apply per se in modern times. But again and again, we are told that Adam Smith laid down the foundations of modern economics so economists reading this book, take note: go beyond the idea and see how the base of it applies to our modern times.
Overall, it was a book I had to read if I were to find out more about my field of work and study and I was not thoroughly disappointed by the experience. It is a gem in the world of economics and despite its sharp edges and black stones, the wealth of nations delivers an educative and interesting read.
To start, I fairly enjoyed the language and the adept expertise with which Mr. Smith forged his sentences and used his skills to portray his ideas. I also enjoyed the main points behind the economic ideas I came to study and familiarize myself with during my university years such as the concept of rent, revenues, commerce and trade, the duties of the sovereign and how the administration should levy taxes and collect revenues to help with providing such public services and goods. In short, the language and concepts were well laid out and enjoyable to get to know.
But the above mentioned is also the problem with this book. The language was too prolonged and every sentence practically repeated the one before it. Adam Smith could be saying one idea, describing it and explaining its basis over 20 pages while I actually got the jist of it in the first two. In some parts of the book, the complexity with which he writes lets you lose sight of what he wanted to say, egging you on to skip a few lines to the next idea. As for his economic ideas, well, they were written in a time where monarchies and empires ruled the Earth so most of what he wrote about does not apply per se in modern times. But again and again, we are told that Adam Smith laid down the foundations of modern economics so economists reading this book, take note: go beyond the idea and see how the base of it applies to our modern times.
Overall, it was a book I had to read if I were to find out more about my field of work and study and I was not thoroughly disappointed by the experience. It is a gem in the world of economics and despite its sharp edges and black stones, the wealth of nations delivers an educative and interesting read.
September 8, 2017
So obvious, that the precepts of the book must always have been the case.
This is what I felt myself thinking as I read every idea contained within this book. But, oftentimes I find it an increasing challenge to appreciate a book, the greater the time since it was written. The aim is to put yourself in the time this book was written, to try and gain a better impression of the author's work. So, with this book, I thought that I didn't appreciate the book because I didn't understand the time within which it was written. In fact, what in this book currently is so obvious, was once radical.
Published in 1776, at the forefront of national change in America, the revolution, the advent of industrialisation, the reduction in mercantilism and the increase in free trade. This book, would have been advanced for its time, but also today, a written demonstration of the thoughts of the new economist living within this time.
As a standalone book, it is hard to get through, and to appreciate - without, perhaps first, having learnt about the economics that came before, a casual reader might become disinterested in the treatise put forward. I know I did. It wasn't until I read around the history prior to the publication that I began to appreciate the impact this book would have had.
Perhaps this new edition should have laid those foundations for the modern casual reader.
This is what I felt myself thinking as I read every idea contained within this book. But, oftentimes I find it an increasing challenge to appreciate a book, the greater the time since it was written. The aim is to put yourself in the time this book was written, to try and gain a better impression of the author's work. So, with this book, I thought that I didn't appreciate the book because I didn't understand the time within which it was written. In fact, what in this book currently is so obvious, was once radical.
Published in 1776, at the forefront of national change in America, the revolution, the advent of industrialisation, the reduction in mercantilism and the increase in free trade. This book, would have been advanced for its time, but also today, a written demonstration of the thoughts of the new economist living within this time.
As a standalone book, it is hard to get through, and to appreciate - without, perhaps first, having learnt about the economics that came before, a casual reader might become disinterested in the treatise put forward. I know I did. It wasn't until I read around the history prior to the publication that I began to appreciate the impact this book would have had.
Perhaps this new edition should have laid those foundations for the modern casual reader.
July 26, 2016
This edition does not include Book V's Part II: Of taxes or Part III: Of public debts, which would have been interesting to read. Other than that it was a very good look in to the start of modern liberal economics.
August 8, 2024
Adam Smith (1723-1790]) was a Scottish social philosopher, political economist, and one of the key figures of the Scottish Enlightenment. This book was first published in 1776, interestingly enough.
Adam Smith wrote in the Introduction, “The annual labor of each nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labor, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations. According… as this produce… bears a greater or smaller proportion to the number of those who consume it, the nation will be better or worse supplied with all the necessaries and conveniences for which it has occasion. But this proportion must in every nation be regulated by two different circumstances; first, by the skill… with which its labor is generally applied; and secondly, by the proportion between the number of those who are employed in useful labor, and that of those who are not so employed…” (Pg. lvii)
“Among the ‘savage nations of hunters,’ the people are often ‘miserably poor’; while among civilized and thriving nations, "a workman, even of the lowest and poorest order... may enjoy a greater share of the necessities and conveniences of life than it is possible for any savage to acquire… The causes of this improvement, in the productive powers of labor, and the order, according to which its produce is naturally distributed among the different ranks and conditions of men in the society, make the subject of the First Book of this Inquiry.” (Pg. lvii-lviii)
He begins the first chapter with a famous illustration: “The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labor… seem to have been the effects of the division of labor… To take an example… the trade of the pin-maker; a workman not educated to this business (which the division of labor has rendered a distinct trade)… could scarce… with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty… but it is divided into a number of branches… One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations… to whiten the pins… is another… it is even a trade in itself to put them into the paper… making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which… are all performed by distinct hands… Those ten persons … could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day… In every other art and manufacture, the effects of the division of labor are similar to what they are in this very trifling one… The separation of different trades and employments from one another, seems to have taken place, in consequence of this advantage. This separation too is generally carried furthest in those countries which enjoy the highest degree of industry and improvement.” (Pg. 3-5)
He states, “after the division of labor has… taken place, it is but a very small part … with which a man’s own labor can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labor of other people… The value of any commodity… is equal to the quantity of labor which it enables him to purchase or command. Labor, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.” (Pg. 30) Later, he adds, “Labor measures the value not only of that part of price which resolves itself into labor, but that which resolves itself into rent, and of that which resolves itself into profit.” (Pg. 50)
He observes, “What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor… In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediately… whoever imagines… that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action… Masters do sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labor even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people.” (Pg. 66-67)
He acknowledges, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less render then necessary.” (Pg. 128)
He suggests, “We are more industrious than our forefathers; because in the present times the funds destined for the maintenance of industry, are much greater in proportion to those which are likely to be employed in the maintenance of idleness, than they were two or three centuries ago. Our ancestors were idle for want of a sufficient encouragement to industry. It is better, says the proverb, to play for nothing, than to work for nothing.” (Pg. 319) He continues, “Wherever capital predominates, industry prevails; wherever revenue, idleness.” (Pg. 321)
He points out, “many expensive and unnecessary wars, great perversion of the annual produce from maintaining productive to maintain unproductive hands… have left the country… poorer than at the beginning… had not those wars given this particular direction to so large a capital, the greater part of it would naturally have been employed in maintaining productive hands… More houses would have been built, more lands would have been improved…and to what height the real wealth and revenue of the country might, by this time, have been raised, it is not perhaps very easy even to imagine.” (Pg. 327-328)
Perhaps the most important part of the book, however, is this: “every individual… neither intends to promote the public interest, now knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this… led by an INVISIBLE HAND to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good…”(Pg. 423)
He continues, “It is the maxim of every prudent master … never to attempt to make at home which it will cost him more to make than to buy. The tailor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them from a shoemaker. The shoemaker does not attempt to make his own clothes, but employs a tailor. The farmer attempts to make neither one nor the other, but employs those different artificers. All of them find it for their interest to employ their whole industry in a way in which they have some advantage over their neighbors, and to purchase with a part of its produce… whatever else they have occasion for.” (Pg. 424)
He adds, “The natural advantages which one country has over another in producing particular commodities are sometimes so great, that it is acknowledged by all the world to be in vain to struggle with them… As long as one country has those advantages, and the other wants them, it will always be more advantageous for the latter, rather to buy of the former than to make… they both find it more advantageous to buy of one another, than to make what does not belong to their particular trades.” (Pg. 425-426)
He argues, “taxes upon the necessaries of life have nearly the same effect upon the circumstances of the people as a poor soil and a bad climate… Such taxes, when they have grown to a certain height, re a curse equal to the barrenness of the earth and the inclemency of the heavens; and yet it is in the richest and most industrious countries that they have been most generally imposed. No other countries could support so great a disorder.” (Pg. 433)
He notes, “The monopoly raises the rate of profit, but it hinders the sum of profit from rising so high as it otherwise would do. All the original sources of revenue, the wages of labor, the rent of land, and the profits of stock, the monopoly renders much less abundant than they otherwise would be. To promote the little interest of one little order of men in one country, it hurts the interest of all other orders of man in that country, and of all men in all other countries.” (Pg. 578)
He states, “It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stock towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society… But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lad them to divide and distribute the stock of every society, among all the different employments carried on it,, as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society.” (Pg. 594-595)
He argues, “It can never be the interest of the unproductive class to oppress the other two classes. IT is the surplus produce of the land, or what remains after deducting the maintenance, first, of the cultivators, and afterwards, of the proprietors, that maintains and employes the unproductive class. The greater this surplus, the greater must likewise be the maintenance and employment of that class. The establishment of perfect justice, of perfect liberty, and of perfect equality, is the very simple secret which most effectually secures the highest degree of prosperity to all the three classes.” (Pg. 634)
He observes, “It may be laid down as a certain maxim, that, all other things being supposed equal, the richer the church, the poorer must necessarily be, either the sovereign on the one hand, or the people on the other; and, in all cases, the less able must the state be to defend itself.” (Pg. 765)
More controversially, perhaps, he also opines, “It is not contrary to justice that both Ireland and America should contribute towards the discharge of the public debt of Great Britain. That debt has been contracted in support of the government … to which all the colonies of America owe the liberty, security, and property which they have ever since enjoyed…” (Pg. 696-697)
One cannot adequately summarize a masterwork such as Smith's within the confines of a one-page book review, of course. But anyone even remotely interested in economics and politics should seriously study this compelling and influential work.
Adam Smith wrote in the Introduction, “The annual labor of each nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labor, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations. According… as this produce… bears a greater or smaller proportion to the number of those who consume it, the nation will be better or worse supplied with all the necessaries and conveniences for which it has occasion. But this proportion must in every nation be regulated by two different circumstances; first, by the skill… with which its labor is generally applied; and secondly, by the proportion between the number of those who are employed in useful labor, and that of those who are not so employed…” (Pg. lvii)
“Among the ‘savage nations of hunters,’ the people are often ‘miserably poor’; while among civilized and thriving nations, "a workman, even of the lowest and poorest order... may enjoy a greater share of the necessities and conveniences of life than it is possible for any savage to acquire… The causes of this improvement, in the productive powers of labor, and the order, according to which its produce is naturally distributed among the different ranks and conditions of men in the society, make the subject of the First Book of this Inquiry.” (Pg. lvii-lviii)
He begins the first chapter with a famous illustration: “The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labor… seem to have been the effects of the division of labor… To take an example… the trade of the pin-maker; a workman not educated to this business (which the division of labor has rendered a distinct trade)… could scarce… with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty… but it is divided into a number of branches… One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations… to whiten the pins… is another… it is even a trade in itself to put them into the paper… making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which… are all performed by distinct hands… Those ten persons … could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day… In every other art and manufacture, the effects of the division of labor are similar to what they are in this very trifling one… The separation of different trades and employments from one another, seems to have taken place, in consequence of this advantage. This separation too is generally carried furthest in those countries which enjoy the highest degree of industry and improvement.” (Pg. 3-5)
He states, “after the division of labor has… taken place, it is but a very small part … with which a man’s own labor can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labor of other people… The value of any commodity… is equal to the quantity of labor which it enables him to purchase or command. Labor, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.” (Pg. 30) Later, he adds, “Labor measures the value not only of that part of price which resolves itself into labor, but that which resolves itself into rent, and of that which resolves itself into profit.” (Pg. 50)
He observes, “What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor… In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediately… whoever imagines… that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action… Masters do sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labor even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people.” (Pg. 66-67)
He acknowledges, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less render then necessary.” (Pg. 128)
He suggests, “We are more industrious than our forefathers; because in the present times the funds destined for the maintenance of industry, are much greater in proportion to those which are likely to be employed in the maintenance of idleness, than they were two or three centuries ago. Our ancestors were idle for want of a sufficient encouragement to industry. It is better, says the proverb, to play for nothing, than to work for nothing.” (Pg. 319) He continues, “Wherever capital predominates, industry prevails; wherever revenue, idleness.” (Pg. 321)
He points out, “many expensive and unnecessary wars, great perversion of the annual produce from maintaining productive to maintain unproductive hands… have left the country… poorer than at the beginning… had not those wars given this particular direction to so large a capital, the greater part of it would naturally have been employed in maintaining productive hands… More houses would have been built, more lands would have been improved…and to what height the real wealth and revenue of the country might, by this time, have been raised, it is not perhaps very easy even to imagine.” (Pg. 327-328)
Perhaps the most important part of the book, however, is this: “every individual… neither intends to promote the public interest, now knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this… led by an INVISIBLE HAND to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good…”(Pg. 423)
He continues, “It is the maxim of every prudent master … never to attempt to make at home which it will cost him more to make than to buy. The tailor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them from a shoemaker. The shoemaker does not attempt to make his own clothes, but employs a tailor. The farmer attempts to make neither one nor the other, but employs those different artificers. All of them find it for their interest to employ their whole industry in a way in which they have some advantage over their neighbors, and to purchase with a part of its produce… whatever else they have occasion for.” (Pg. 424)
He adds, “The natural advantages which one country has over another in producing particular commodities are sometimes so great, that it is acknowledged by all the world to be in vain to struggle with them… As long as one country has those advantages, and the other wants them, it will always be more advantageous for the latter, rather to buy of the former than to make… they both find it more advantageous to buy of one another, than to make what does not belong to their particular trades.” (Pg. 425-426)
He argues, “taxes upon the necessaries of life have nearly the same effect upon the circumstances of the people as a poor soil and a bad climate… Such taxes, when they have grown to a certain height, re a curse equal to the barrenness of the earth and the inclemency of the heavens; and yet it is in the richest and most industrious countries that they have been most generally imposed. No other countries could support so great a disorder.” (Pg. 433)
He notes, “The monopoly raises the rate of profit, but it hinders the sum of profit from rising so high as it otherwise would do. All the original sources of revenue, the wages of labor, the rent of land, and the profits of stock, the monopoly renders much less abundant than they otherwise would be. To promote the little interest of one little order of men in one country, it hurts the interest of all other orders of man in that country, and of all men in all other countries.” (Pg. 578)
He states, “It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stock towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society… But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lad them to divide and distribute the stock of every society, among all the different employments carried on it,, as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society.” (Pg. 594-595)
He argues, “It can never be the interest of the unproductive class to oppress the other two classes. IT is the surplus produce of the land, or what remains after deducting the maintenance, first, of the cultivators, and afterwards, of the proprietors, that maintains and employes the unproductive class. The greater this surplus, the greater must likewise be the maintenance and employment of that class. The establishment of perfect justice, of perfect liberty, and of perfect equality, is the very simple secret which most effectually secures the highest degree of prosperity to all the three classes.” (Pg. 634)
He observes, “It may be laid down as a certain maxim, that, all other things being supposed equal, the richer the church, the poorer must necessarily be, either the sovereign on the one hand, or the people on the other; and, in all cases, the less able must the state be to defend itself.” (Pg. 765)
More controversially, perhaps, he also opines, “It is not contrary to justice that both Ireland and America should contribute towards the discharge of the public debt of Great Britain. That debt has been contracted in support of the government … to which all the colonies of America owe the liberty, security, and property which they have ever since enjoyed…” (Pg. 696-697)
One cannot adequately summarize a masterwork such as Smith's within the confines of a one-page book review, of course. But anyone even remotely interested in economics and politics should seriously study this compelling and influential work.
September 5, 2023
This was much more approachable than I expected, though definitely much longer too.
This book covers a lot with a lot of thoughtful commentary. Parts of it definitely drag as Smith goes into levels of detail that rather than further his point mostly emphasize his obsession with it. In a number of other places, Smith is almost frustratingly light.
I'd heard a few times that this book has been heavily referenced by socialist proponents, and not just capitalists. Reading it definitely makes clear how doable that is. Smith repeatedly criticizes the practices of mercantilists (who would today be called capitalists) to further their own interest whenever given the opportunity. He stresses that such people, when given a chance, will portray their own interests as more general ones and cannot be trusted.
One of my larger curiosities came from how Smith would describe a free market. It's not so easy to garner even after reading. Where Smith advocates a free market, it's disparaging the government from policies that show favoritism to a particular trade/trader. This aligns with my understanding. Yet, he also suggests subsidies to raw production (grain) may be worthwhile to stimulate land investment.
Furthermore, Smith disparages a number of capitalist practices such as corporations (effectively guilds) and stock-based companies, but is rather light on the government's role in stopping them. He mostly implies that such things were ineffectual in practice and would ruin themselves by their inability to compete with more effectual companies (as long as those other ones weren't blocked by government). This assumption that such stifling mercantile practices would doom themselves soon enough without interference seems strikingly naive.
There are a number of questionable assumptions in the book (even before considering what premises have been shown to not hold with the passage of time). For example, Smith discounts vertical integration because the combination would cause an increased management challenge while at best offering the sum of profit of the separate entities. Yet this assumes that the possible profit from the combo isn't any higher than a focus on any particular one, or basically that there's no market cap when in many places he uses natural market caps as a way of the system balancing itself.
On a more interesting note, he made a pretty strong argument for Great Britain to divest itself of the North American colonies - guess that kind of worked out for him.
This book covers a lot with a lot of thoughtful commentary. Parts of it definitely drag as Smith goes into levels of detail that rather than further his point mostly emphasize his obsession with it. In a number of other places, Smith is almost frustratingly light.
I'd heard a few times that this book has been heavily referenced by socialist proponents, and not just capitalists. Reading it definitely makes clear how doable that is. Smith repeatedly criticizes the practices of mercantilists (who would today be called capitalists) to further their own interest whenever given the opportunity. He stresses that such people, when given a chance, will portray their own interests as more general ones and cannot be trusted.
One of my larger curiosities came from how Smith would describe a free market. It's not so easy to garner even after reading. Where Smith advocates a free market, it's disparaging the government from policies that show favoritism to a particular trade/trader. This aligns with my understanding. Yet, he also suggests subsidies to raw production (grain) may be worthwhile to stimulate land investment.
Furthermore, Smith disparages a number of capitalist practices such as corporations (effectively guilds) and stock-based companies, but is rather light on the government's role in stopping them. He mostly implies that such things were ineffectual in practice and would ruin themselves by their inability to compete with more effectual companies (as long as those other ones weren't blocked by government). This assumption that such stifling mercantile practices would doom themselves soon enough without interference seems strikingly naive.
There are a number of questionable assumptions in the book (even before considering what premises have been shown to not hold with the passage of time). For example, Smith discounts vertical integration because the combination would cause an increased management challenge while at best offering the sum of profit of the separate entities. Yet this assumes that the possible profit from the combo isn't any higher than a focus on any particular one, or basically that there's no market cap when in many places he uses natural market caps as a way of the system balancing itself.
On a more interesting note, he made a pretty strong argument for Great Britain to divest itself of the North American colonies - guess that kind of worked out for him.
Read
October 2, 2025In the past, I used to think I carried an “undiscovered depth,” and that thought made me happy because I dreamed that one day someone would finally understand and celebrate me. But the more time I spent among humans, my thoughts turned sharp and began cutting through illusions one by one, and thus I began to feel genuine worry about this depth. Not an inner worry, not “I am unworthy,” but more about how someone as noble as I could survive in such a deplorable society. I learned that people, as if by design, are fundamentally hostile to depth. What I feel now is no longer bliss for my depth, but the need to hide it paranoically to prevent it from being corrupted. Because now I know this: if society discovers my depth, it will not see depth itself, but only a “potential” to convert into productivity and exploit. When “misunderstood geniuses” end their own lives, the average person reacts, “What a great potential wasted.” This is because they see such individuals not as universes each carrying their own realities, but as machines designed to contribute to “progress,” or at least they imply it. A person who utters such words seems to serve society itself. They act as if they own humanity. Why should what happens in the world concern them so deeply? It actually doesn’t; they are simply blind to the values they carry. A secret they will never know is this: those “misunderstood geniuses” are precisely more likely to commit that final act because people can respond in no more than this narrow way: “They wasted their potential.” Am I the only one who sees that by making it fundamentally impossible for their potentials to be turned into mere “potential,” they are, in effect, slapping civilization in the face?
May 27, 2024
Wow, where to begin? Living in the year 2024, we have so many opinions, priorities, and alternative realities mixed with facts it is nice to get back to some fundamental basics. This book was written in 1776 by a Scottish philosopher and economist. Without pointing fingers or an agenda of superiority, he breaks down topics of interest that we debate to this day. Topics like:
§ Labor Shortages
§ Immigration
§ Wages
§ Tariffs
§ Exports & Import Policies
§ Rents
§ Cost of Goods and Services
§ Taxes
§ Value of Money
This book explains why you would choose one method or another under various condition.
I cannot begin to remember or understand everything presented. But what I did understand was that I want to buy the book so I can take time to study the principles and know how they apply to today's world. The topics listed above are debated regularly today and I want to understand rather than be told what to think. The 3* rating has more to do with the writing style and my inability to understand than the content of the book. Someday, I hope I can change the rating to something higher which reflects my growth of knowledge.
A favorite quote that cannot be forgotten in any time “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable”.
§ Labor Shortages
§ Immigration
§ Wages
§ Tariffs
§ Exports & Import Policies
§ Rents
§ Cost of Goods and Services
§ Taxes
§ Value of Money
This book explains why you would choose one method or another under various condition.
I cannot begin to remember or understand everything presented. But what I did understand was that I want to buy the book so I can take time to study the principles and know how they apply to today's world. The topics listed above are debated regularly today and I want to understand rather than be told what to think. The 3* rating has more to do with the writing style and my inability to understand than the content of the book. Someday, I hope I can change the rating to something higher which reflects my growth of knowledge.
A favorite quote that cannot be forgotten in any time “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable”.
November 29, 2023
Adam Smith has some good points and some open very arguable points that we still trying to figure out a better system I think.
He supports free market and less involvement of government which seems fine and at the time it seems to worked. But I also got the impression that the main purpose of all of us must raise our capital as much as we can and kinda the strongest survives... He also sees all kind of spendings other than related with the capital as a waste and belittles who does it as I see..
The biggest problem is here probably, the wages of workers... He also doesn't deny himself that for 1 rich person to have wealth there must be at least 500 poor men... Now, what kind of a healthy society can be driven with that I don't know.. And that's actually how it is now. Rich gets richer and poor gets poorer.. That's why socialism came out as an alternative.. but I believe both of them fails at some point. Maybe a system for humans are not possible because of human selfishness I don't know...
He supports free market and less involvement of government which seems fine and at the time it seems to worked. But I also got the impression that the main purpose of all of us must raise our capital as much as we can and kinda the strongest survives... He also sees all kind of spendings other than related with the capital as a waste and belittles who does it as I see..
The biggest problem is here probably, the wages of workers... He also doesn't deny himself that for 1 rich person to have wealth there must be at least 500 poor men... Now, what kind of a healthy society can be driven with that I don't know.. And that's actually how it is now. Rich gets richer and poor gets poorer.. That's why socialism came out as an alternative.. but I believe both of them fails at some point. Maybe a system for humans are not possible because of human selfishness I don't know...
July 30, 2024
If you want to understand how our society works and why, read this book.
In Wealth of Nations, a society driven by self interest leads not to chaos, but order, and a chance at a fulfilling life for everyone. As a moral philosopher, Adam Smith developed his work in part because he saw how poor people were set up to fail by a constellation of ideas, like that poor people need to be poor to want to work hard. With a mighty stroke of his pen, Smith sets forth a system to rival the old paradigm. Beware of misconceptions you may hold: Smith often includes snide remarks about landlords and merchants. He is much more balanced (and brilliant) than even many today believe him to be. Push through a few pages until you are used to his writing style, or else his early wordiness may put you off. Once you get to the pin factory, it is all up from there, though you may like to skip his very long digression on silver.
This book may well change your life. More likely---thanks to Smith changing the paradigm in our society from mercantilism to annual growth---it already has.
In Wealth of Nations, a society driven by self interest leads not to chaos, but order, and a chance at a fulfilling life for everyone. As a moral philosopher, Adam Smith developed his work in part because he saw how poor people were set up to fail by a constellation of ideas, like that poor people need to be poor to want to work hard. With a mighty stroke of his pen, Smith sets forth a system to rival the old paradigm. Beware of misconceptions you may hold: Smith often includes snide remarks about landlords and merchants. He is much more balanced (and brilliant) than even many today believe him to be. Push through a few pages until you are used to his writing style, or else his early wordiness may put you off. Once you get to the pin factory, it is all up from there, though you may like to skip his very long digression on silver.
This book may well change your life. More likely---thanks to Smith changing the paradigm in our society from mercantilism to annual growth---it already has.
August 23, 2025
The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith is a classic book that founded modern economics. It argues that a nation's true wealth comes from the goods and services its people create, not from gold in a vault. Smith's famous idea of the "invisible hand" suggests that when individuals are free to pursue their own self-interest in a competitive market, they end up benefiting society as a whole by creating jobs, innovation, and products people need.
I first read a few chapters back in college for a class, but it felt more like a history lesson. Reading it again now, with more life and work experience, is far more enlightening. I can see the real-world connections to how businesses and economies actually operate today. While some parts are outdated, its core ideas about specialization, free markets, and limited government intervention are still incredibly relevant and form the basis of so much economic discussion. It's a challenging but rewarding read.
I first read a few chapters back in college for a class, but it felt more like a history lesson. Reading it again now, with more life and work experience, is far more enlightening. I can see the real-world connections to how businesses and economies actually operate today. While some parts are outdated, its core ideas about specialization, free markets, and limited government intervention are still incredibly relevant and form the basis of so much economic discussion. It's a challenging but rewarding read.
December 9, 2024
The first half of the book was very informative and interesting. I feel better educated in economics as a result. The second half of the book was a bit much. By the last quarter of the book, when debts of European countries were noted to the shilling and pence, in 1775, it was no longer pertinent. So much has changed since this was written but many points still pertain overall.
Some thoughts, why is debt of a country even allowed? If you don’t have money to go to war, then don’t go to war. The fact that there are always those who work and those who don’t. Plenty of people want to have others do the work for them but receive the benefit as if they had done the work. There really are few basic ingredients upon which every food is made. Base grains and veggies and fruits. Knowledge of how to best use those basics is what differentiates the user.
Some thoughts, why is debt of a country even allowed? If you don’t have money to go to war, then don’t go to war. The fact that there are always those who work and those who don’t. Plenty of people want to have others do the work for them but receive the benefit as if they had done the work. There really are few basic ingredients upon which every food is made. Base grains and veggies and fruits. Knowledge of how to best use those basics is what differentiates the user.
March 5, 2022
The wealth of nations est le tout premier livre sur l'économie que j'ai lu (et adoré). C'était l'été après ma graduation de l'école secondaire juste avant ma rentrée au cégep en sciences humaines profil administration. D'ailleurs, j'ai dû étudier ce livre dans le cadre de mes cours d'économie. Bref, publié en 1776 par Adam Smith, celui-ci explique ses théories sur le marché économique d'aujourd'hui et d'autrefois. Ce livre si logique, m'a développé une curiosité pour l'entreprenariat et la prospérité financière.
August 27, 2023
Setelah membaca Capital, lanjut dengan buku ini, buku legendaris yang diceritakan sejak jaman IPS di SMP
"Produktivitas dalam masyarakat dimaksimalkan dengan menerapkan pembagian kerja yang memungkinkan individu untuk melakukan spesialisasi. Surplus yang dihasilkan kemudian dapat diperdagangkan atau diinvestasikan sesuai dengan kepentingan individu. Hal ini juga mendukung kepentingan terbaik masyarakat, oleh karena itu pemerintah harus mengesampingkan dan membiarkan masyarakat sejahtera melalui pasar bebas" (Blinkist)
"Produktivitas dalam masyarakat dimaksimalkan dengan menerapkan pembagian kerja yang memungkinkan individu untuk melakukan spesialisasi. Surplus yang dihasilkan kemudian dapat diperdagangkan atau diinvestasikan sesuai dengan kepentingan individu. Hal ini juga mendukung kepentingan terbaik masyarakat, oleh karena itu pemerintah harus mengesampingkan dan membiarkan masyarakat sejahtera melalui pasar bebas" (Blinkist)
April 5, 2021
This book was a bit hard to read and digest as, also mentioned in other reviews, the idea explanations were too prolonged and it made really hard to follow what the author wanted to convey. There were many identical sentences as well.
But nonetheless, the book had some great points and even though many things may not apply in modern times, the foundation of economics described was logical and helps to understand how economics escalated into what we have today.
But nonetheless, the book had some great points and even though many things may not apply in modern times, the foundation of economics described was logical and helps to understand how economics escalated into what we have today.
September 28, 2023
I didn't realize that this was an abridged version when I bought it, but it read very well and I liked the points of the origional author in this format(if they weren't misconstrued). Enough to find an origional or unabridged version that goes into depth on a handful of things I think this one might have only hit on a surface level. Time will tell when I read the unabridged version then my review might change.
March 12, 2024
While readers can get bogged down in Smith’s endless examples from his day to prove his points, this book explains so much about the current state of the field of economics. Smith draws conclusions based on astute observations that put him well before his time. Much of what he writes about was not well documented until over a hundred years later. Regardless of where one stands on the role of government in an economy, everyone will benefit from reading this classic.
October 5, 2024
"Adam Smith's life to a significant extent followed his own theories highlights the reason why the Wealth of Nations continues to inspire and be of value to today's reader: that in providing a recipe for national wealth, it along the way offers wisdom for the success and prosperity of the individual"
One of the most influential books ever written. But being written over 200 years ago also made it a real slog. I think I started this 2 years ago and chipped away. Glad to be finished!
One of the most influential books ever written. But being written over 200 years ago also made it a real slog. I think I started this 2 years ago and chipped away. Glad to be finished!
December 22, 2021
excellent summary of the original!
This book captures all the main ideas from the original, while eliminating most of the unnecessary language.
You will save hours by reading this version instead of the original.
This book captures all the main ideas from the original, while eliminating most of the unnecessary language.
You will save hours by reading this version instead of the original.
December 24, 2024
Good version of the book. Highlights Smith's main ideas, brutally trims the fat without losing any of the logic.
The Wealth of Nations itself feels like a kind of 'common sense' book, with lots of lightbulb moments marking each chapter. Quite a satisfying read.
The Wealth of Nations itself feels like a kind of 'common sense' book, with lots of lightbulb moments marking each chapter. Quite a satisfying read.
August 9, 2021
Saya berikan penilaian seakan-akan saya hidup di era buku ini terbit pertama kali. Karena benar2 revolusioner idenya untuk memikirkan ini rilis tahun 1700an dan masih terbukti di tahun 2021.
Mulai dari ide divisi kerja, menentang perbudakan, investasi, sampai pajak. Benar2 masih benar pemikirannya saya lihat di hari ini.
Kendala saya hanya tidak biasa membaca old-english seperti ini, buku terlama yg saya baca sampai saat ini.
Mulai dari ide divisi kerja, menentang perbudakan, investasi, sampai pajak. Benar2 masih benar pemikirannya saya lihat di hari ini.
Kendala saya hanya tidak biasa membaca old-english seperti ini, buku terlama yg saya baca sampai saat ini.
January 11, 2022
Interesting, but didn’t really love nor enjoy it.
March 23, 2022
Average version of a great book. Many important parts are missing.
June 19, 2023
More tedious as I get older. Read it at 18 before I was an econ major. 30 years later, would rather read Talib works (fantastic) or Krugman columns.
December 18, 2024
Important to understanding capitalism
July 26, 2025
Learned about money n that
Come on
Come on
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews