What do you think?
Rate this book
The Wealth of Nations, Books 1-3
Originally delivered in the form of lectures at Glasgow, Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations Books I-III laid the foundations of economic theory in general and 'classical' economics in particular, and this Penguin Classics edition is edited with an introduction and notes by Andrew Skinner.
The publication of The Wealth of Nations in 1776 coincided with America's Declaration of Independence, and with this landmark treatise on political economy, Adam Smith paved the way for modern capitalism, arguing that a truly free market - fired by competition yet guided as if by an 'invisible hand' to ensure justice and equality - was the engine of a fair and productive society. Books I - III of The Wealth of Nations examine the 'division of labour' as the key to economic growth, by ensuring the interdependence of individuals within society. They also cover the origins of money and the importance of wages, profit, rent and stocks; but the real sophistication of his analysis derives from the fact that it encompasses a combination of ethics, philosophy and history to create a vast panorama of society.
This edition contains an analytical introduction offering an in-depth discussion of Smith as an economist and social scientist, as well as a preface, further reading and explanatory notes.
The publication of The Wealth of Nations in 1776 coincided with America's Declaration of Independence, and with this landmark treatise on political economy, Adam Smith paved the way for modern capitalism, arguing that a truly free market - fired by competition yet guided as if by an 'invisible hand' to ensure justice and equality - was the engine of a fair and productive society. Books I - III of The Wealth of Nations examine the 'division of labour' as the key to economic growth, by ensuring the interdependence of individuals within society. They also cover the origins of money and the importance of wages, profit, rent and stocks; but the real sophistication of his analysis derives from the fact that it encompasses a combination of ethics, philosophy and history to create a vast panorama of society.
This edition contains an analytical introduction offering an in-depth discussion of Smith as an economist and social scientist, as well as a preface, further reading and explanatory notes.
544 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1776
534 people are currently reading
14589 people want to read
About the author
Adam Smith
1,449 books2,289 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 122 reviews
February 17, 2013
The Wealth of Nations is not an easy read, but it is the best, most truthful look at industrial and geopolitical finance, capitalism and free-market functionality ever written.
If you have ever wondered why something that occurs in some far off land can have an economic impact felt round the world, then the answer can be found in this book.
If you have ever wondered why something that occurs in some far off land can have an economic impact felt round the world, then the answer can be found in this book.
October 1, 2020
В началото бе ... Адам Смит. (Не Адам и Ева)
Какво да дадеш на бащата на модерната икономика - даваш му 5 шилинга ... така де, 5 звезди.
Също като Дарвин, наричан бащата на еволюцията, нито икономиката започва с единия, нито еволюцията с другия, а по-скоро и двамата систематизират умело наблюденията си и в крайна сметка са първите доложили ги върху хартия структурирано. И в двата случая има и други съвременници, които са наблюдавали и разсъждавали върху същото, но - кой превари, той остава в историята! Това е силата на книгата.
Друга прилика е, че magnum opus-ът и на двамата е известен с някакво съкратено име. По онова време не са били такива фенове на съкращенията, каквито сме ние днес. Цялото наименование на книгата е "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". Съставена е от лекции, които Смит е преподавал в Глазгоу. Публикуването ѝ съвпада с Декларацията за Независимостта на САЩ, така че в самата книга ще четете за Северна Америка като за колонии на Великата майка Британия. XVIII век Британия наистина е в епогея си и освен, че контролира половината свят, флагмен е на индустриалната революция, това може да се разбере и по издадените в това време книги - две вече споменати в това ревю. Лондон, разбира се е топ локацията на планетата - всичко интересно се случва там, но виждаме и че в Шотландия се мисли по глобалните теми. Имате шанс да Ви преподават такива хора като Смит.
Книгата е разделена на 3 книги. Има издания и с различна подредба и дължина, това специално е 3 книги:
1-вата е основно за разделението на труда и как то е позволило да се произвежда много повече, съответно да се потребява повече. Като говорим за разделение на труда, не го мислете като в съвременните фабрики, или дори тези от 19-20 век. Примерите са за ковач, който прави само и единствено пирони. Той не е истински ковач дори, но може да прави много повече на брой пирони от пълнокръвен опитен ковач. Защото прави по цял ден само това. Говори се и за заплатите. Дават се интересно примери с колониите в Северна Америка и паралел със застиналата във времето Китай, обвзета от безгранична бедност и затворена в себе си. Сведенията на пътешественици не се различавали от тези на Марко Поло отпреди 500 г. - страната един вид е 'замръзнала" в развитието си. Кажете как после хитрият англичанин да не се възползва от това положение ...
2-рата част винаги ми е била най-скучна. Тук си е нещо като "Основи на икономиката" - цени, капитал, видове капитал, монополи ... сещате се. Учебникарската част.
3-тата книга е основно за международната търговия. Прави се исторически и социален преглед на нациите ... само че имайте предвид, че за британец от XVII век нациите са: Тази на острова, Франция, Холандия, Португалия ... общо взето това са. Да, споменават се Отоманите и Китай като пример за изостанали, поради външнотърговската си изолираност. Затворени в себе си, се обричат. Русия е спомената само май само в едно изречение, че Китай им отказвал търговия. Исторически се говори за нациите по Средиземно море, за Египет и с някакво непознато за мен наименование на Индия. Колониите и ... Това е светът за британеца :) Вероятно е бил прав. Поне за себе си и сънародниците. Като притежаваш и черпиш ресурси от половината свят, признаваш за нация само, който държи останалата половина. Именно изброените малко по-горе.
Трябва да призная, че книгата е по-интересна от днешните учебници по Икономика. По-философска и социална. Имайте предвид също, че по това време за оценка на стоки, блага, търговия и капитали се визира добивът от мините, от земеделието и труда на занаятчиите. Това е производството. Не говорим за автомобили, а за карети. Няма развит бърз транспорт, има корабна навигация. Дори само това пренасяне в духа на онова време си заслужава прочита. Прелиствал съм я като студент, но определено ми беше интересно да се върна в началото на модерния свят. Толкова, че я изгълтах за ден и половина - два.
Ако сте я пропуснали - не я пропускайте. Тя е като да се върнеш назад във времето и да гледаш как се излива бетонът за къщата, в която живееш от малък.
В същото време, дебатът днес е дали още важат принципите, описани от Смит? Привидно - да. Обаче започват и да буксуват, икономиките не могат да поддържат вечен ръст, или дори цикличност. Да не говорим за ръст с бързи темпове - няма нови земи и безчет колонии, които да бачкат за теб. Дошло е време за друго мислене. Много хора го наблюдаваме, така че неизбежно някой ще седне да го систематизира върху хартия. Без значение кой ще е първият, макар и той да остане в историята.
П.С. Да кажеш, че Адам Смит е икономист е малко като да кежеш, че Исус Христос е християнин.
Какво да дадеш на бащата на модерната икономика - даваш му 5 шилинга ... така де, 5 звезди.
Също като Дарвин, наричан бащата на еволюцията, нито икономиката започва с единия, нито еволюцията с другия, а по-скоро и двамата систематизират умело наблюденията си и в крайна сметка са първите доложили ги върху хартия структурирано. И в двата случая има и други съвременници, които са наблюдавали и разсъждавали върху същото, но - кой превари, той остава в историята! Това е силата на книгата.
Друга прилика е, че magnum opus-ът и на двамата е известен с някакво съкратено име. По онова време не са били такива фенове на съкращенията, каквито сме ние днес. Цялото наименование на книгата е "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". Съставена е от лекции, които Смит е преподавал в Глазгоу. Публикуването ѝ съвпада с Декларацията за Независимостта на САЩ, така че в самата книга ще четете за Северна Америка като за колонии на Великата майка Британия. XVIII век Британия наистина е в епогея си и освен, че контролира половината свят, флагмен е на индустриалната революция, това може да се разбере и по издадените в това време книги - две вече споменати в това ревю. Лондон, разбира се е топ локацията на планетата - всичко интересно се случва там, но виждаме и че в Шотландия се мисли по глобалните теми. Имате шанс да Ви преподават такива хора като Смит.
Книгата е разделена на 3 книги. Има издания и с различна подредба и дължина, това специално е 3 книги:
1-вата е основно за разделението на труда и как то е позволило да се произвежда много повече, съответно да се потребява повече. Като говорим за разделение на труда, не го мислете като в съвременните фабрики, или дори тези от 19-20 век. Примерите са за ковач, който прави само и единствено пирони. Той не е истински ковач дори, но може да прави много повече на брой пирони от пълнокръвен опитен ковач. Защото прави по цял ден само това. Говори се и за заплатите. Дават се интересно примери с колониите в Северна Америка и паралел със застиналата във времето Китай, обвзета от безгранична бедност и затворена в себе си. Сведенията на пътешественици не се различавали от тези на Марко Поло отпреди 500 г. - страната един вид е 'замръзнала" в развитието си. Кажете как после хитрият англичанин да не се възползва от това положение ...
2-рата част винаги ми е била най-скучна. Тук си е нещо като "Основи на икономиката" - цени, капитал, видове капитал, монополи ... сещате се. Учебникарската част.
3-тата книга е основно за международната търговия. Прави се исторически и социален преглед на нациите ... само че имайте предвид, че за британец от XVII век нациите са: Тази на острова, Франция, Холандия, Португалия ... общо взето това са. Да, споменават се Отоманите и Китай като пример за изостанали, поради външнотърговската си изолираност. Затворени в себе си, се обричат. Русия е спомената само май само в едно изречение, че Китай им отказвал търговия. Исторически се говори за нациите по Средиземно море, за Египет и с някакво непознато за мен наименование на Индия. Колониите и ... Това е светът за британеца :) Вероятно е бил прав. Поне за себе си и сънародниците. Като притежаваш и черпиш ресурси от половината свят, признаваш за нация само, който държи останалата половина. Именно изброените малко по-горе.
Трябва да призная, че книгата е по-интересна от днешните учебници по Икономика. По-философска и социална. Имайте предвид също, че по това време за оценка на стоки, блага, търговия и капитали се визира добивът от мините, от земеделието и труда на занаятчиите. Това е производството. Не говорим за автомобили, а за карети. Няма развит бърз транспорт, има корабна навигация. Дори само това пренасяне в духа на онова време си заслужава прочита. Прелиствал съм я като студент, но определено ми беше интересно да се върна в началото на модерния свят. Толкова, че я изгълтах за ден и половина - два.
Ако сте я пропуснали - не я пропускайте. Тя е като да се върнеш назад във времето и да гледаш как се излива бетонът за къщата, в която живееш от малък.
В същото време, дебатът днес е дали още важат принципите, описани от Смит? Привидно - да. Обаче започват и да буксуват, икономиките не могат да поддържат вечен ръст, или дори цикличност. Да не говорим за ръст с бързи темпове - няма нови земи и безчет колонии, които да бачкат за теб. Дошло е време за друго мислене. Много хора го наблюдаваме, така че неизбежно някой ще седне да го систематизира върху хартия. Без значение кой ще е първият, макар и той да остане в историята.
П.С. Да кажеш, че Адам Смит е икономист е малко като да кежеш, че Исус Христос е християнин.
May 21, 2014
"The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith is a collection of three books on different subjects in economic theory, marketing philosophy and economics. All of these books contain numerous subjects. The first book is titled "Of the Causes of Improvement in the productive Powers of Labour". This book talks about the division of labor and how certain professions buy and sell more and have a greater output in a market. This book also talks about the importance of stock and wages in a company. The second book is titled "Of the Nature, Accumulation, and Employment of Stock". This talks about stock accumulation and interest. The third and final book is titled " Of the different Progress of Opulence in different Nations". This book describes the importance of markets in growing infrastructure of a nation.
There are no main characters in this book. It is a compilation of multiple theories and writings, written by Adam Smith and other famous economist at the time.
The settings takes place in England and Scotland during the Scottish Enlightenment in 1776. This was a time of great economic growth throughout Britannia. Smith also compares the economy of England to countries such as France and Brussels during the same time period.
Smith's theme is that good markets and trade, lead to a greater world and a better growing nations. This is evident by his comparisons of the Scottish and English people and their standard of living.
I thought this was a great book to read if you are interested in business or economics. I would recommend this to a college reading level who are majoring in business or financing.
There are no main characters in this book. It is a compilation of multiple theories and writings, written by Adam Smith and other famous economist at the time.
The settings takes place in England and Scotland during the Scottish Enlightenment in 1776. This was a time of great economic growth throughout Britannia. Smith also compares the economy of England to countries such as France and Brussels during the same time period.
Smith's theme is that good markets and trade, lead to a greater world and a better growing nations. This is evident by his comparisons of the Scottish and English people and their standard of living.
I thought this was a great book to read if you are interested in business or economics. I would recommend this to a college reading level who are majoring in business or financing.
November 24, 2019
Some might read Adam Smith for guidance on the economics of today, and that would be a poor idea. It's more interesting, especially in this condensed form, as a record of an eighteenth century worldview, and an opportunity to reflect upon the way old worldviews insinuate themselves into the baseline assumptions of later perspectives.
Smith's economics are primarily concerned with the production and consumption of stuff, which is as good a place to begin as any, since we humans do require certain amounts of stuff to live, and to live comfortably, and to live ostentatiously. Naturally, all economics is about more than just stuff; but it is interesting to see how easily Smith moves between talking about raw quantities of goods and the quantity of humans that can be "maintained" by them. One can almost feel how, getting too deep into the mathematics, an economist might forget there's a qualitative difference between the two sides of an equal sign.
Smith has a great many thoughts about how to make more stuff, and what kind of stuff contributes most to prosperity. He wonders at what the social and political changes of (his) recent history have made possible, and while his capitalism is not the same thing as the monster that presently stalks our livelihoods, he seems to think that the merchants of his day had stumbled into something marvelous. His best known observation, the role of the invisible hand, illustrates something fundamental about his worldview: that Europe was prospering due to forces it had not consciously arranged, but which they were uniquely positioned to harness in unprecedented fashion. It's a version of the Providence mythology European and American intellectuals were so fond of in the good old days, and it works better the less you really know about non-European cultures - especially those of indigenous America.
It's too much to expect a contemporary writer to really grasp everything going on in their own time. It's also somewhat presumptuous for a reader from over two hundred years in the future to second guess them, but we have in fact learned a few things in the meantime.
Smith's economics are primarily concerned with the production and consumption of stuff, which is as good a place to begin as any, since we humans do require certain amounts of stuff to live, and to live comfortably, and to live ostentatiously. Naturally, all economics is about more than just stuff; but it is interesting to see how easily Smith moves between talking about raw quantities of goods and the quantity of humans that can be "maintained" by them. One can almost feel how, getting too deep into the mathematics, an economist might forget there's a qualitative difference between the two sides of an equal sign.
Smith has a great many thoughts about how to make more stuff, and what kind of stuff contributes most to prosperity. He wonders at what the social and political changes of (his) recent history have made possible, and while his capitalism is not the same thing as the monster that presently stalks our livelihoods, he seems to think that the merchants of his day had stumbled into something marvelous. His best known observation, the role of the invisible hand, illustrates something fundamental about his worldview: that Europe was prospering due to forces it had not consciously arranged, but which they were uniquely positioned to harness in unprecedented fashion. It's a version of the Providence mythology European and American intellectuals were so fond of in the good old days, and it works better the less you really know about non-European cultures - especially those of indigenous America.
It's too much to expect a contemporary writer to really grasp everything going on in their own time. It's also somewhat presumptuous for a reader from over two hundred years in the future to second guess them, but we have in fact learned a few things in the meantime.
March 26, 2016
"Wealth of Nations - Book 1 to 3" by "Adam Smith" is one of the most popular treatise on economics,I have read and maybe that I ever will read. Adam Smith has been considered as the father of Modern Economics. Well, in the first 3 books which I have read now, there is a myriad knowledge on Economics which is quite relatable to the present day world. Although, this book has been written around 1770's but still much of it's principles are applicable even today. The reason I conclude for this is maybe because with time the prime businesses change but the way of handling a business never changes, whether it's the 18th century or the 21st century it always remains the same. This book sure can develop good business sense among beginners. Where on contrary I never wish to be a business person or ever get involved in business activity. *smile*
Now coming to some of the information regarding economics I have gained from this book. Ah.. its quite a bit difficult to start. There was so much in this book that I don't know where to begin from.
So, the first three books of Wealth of Nations deal about the division of labor and how it has reduced the pressure, simplified life and has enabled man to produce more goods in the same period of time with the same amount of workforce.
Division of labor has indeed simplified life a human in a society. Firstly, there is lesser work pressure on a single person which gives him the opportunity to improve on his skills. Secondly when there was no division of labor like in the case of single weaver, spinner or the tailor, there was wastage of time and there was lesser productivity.
Now, coming to why states where there are more people into primary activities are still developing and states where more people are into secondary and tertiary activities are developed. Well, its because in agriculture, the same farmer ploughs the field, harrows it and does all the work on it. But lets take for example in garment industry, there is division of labour where there is a weaver, a spinner, a tailor and more divisions. There is more productivity and more revenue is generated. Although, this view might be wrong in some cases, but it fits with most.
Now, how does division of labour increases the efficiency. A single nail maker can produce maximum, thousand nails in a day. But ten nail makers when they divide the work can produce four Pounds of nails in a day. A Pound is equivalent to 12000 nails. Hence total production would be 48000 nails. Per person efficiency would calculate to 48000 divided by 10, which is equals to 4800 nails per person.
There are three main parts which make up the total selling price of an item. They are: the profit, the rent and the wages of the labour.
Now, the real cost that is, the price at which an item is prepared is known as its Natural price. The price at which an item is sold is known as its Actual or Market price.
The market price depends on competition in the market. If there is more need of products in the market than the products, then automatically, the market price would be higher than the natural price. If there is lesser need of products in the market than the products, then automatically, the market price would go below the natural price of the commodity.
But if the supply and demand are at level, then market price would be equal to the natural price.
But in either of the last two situations, the businessperson would be a loser in the trade. Only in the first situation would he will make profit.
Well, there is a very renowned phrase of this book:
"It is not from the benevolance of brewer, baker or butcher that we expect our dinner but from their regard to their own interest"
Smith says that we address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their own advantages.
The profit on a commodity depends on the following:
1) variation of price in the basic materials required to make the finished commodity.
2) good or bad fortune of both his rivals and his customers.
3) accidents or happenings ( this is more to be left in god's hands )
Then Smith describes the circulating capital and the fixed capital. The circulating capital of a person is one which he further invests in the trade while the fixed capital is the one which a person buys and is valuable to him but he doesn't sells it or doesn't further trade it.
Then comes the gross revenue and net revenue. The gross revenue is the whole of produce of the land and labour. The net revenue is the profit gained out of a transaction and can also be called the real wealth of a person. My definition of real wealth would be some thing different. *smile*
The gross rent is the rent given by farmer to the landlord and the net rent is the profit that the landlord has really gained after giving all the maintenance and wear and tear of the property.
There was so much in the book that I don't even remember right now. But surely, very interesting, but a little too long. Anyways, very educating and worth the time for someone interested to understand Commerce & economics. *smile*
Nandini Goel
Now coming to some of the information regarding economics I have gained from this book. Ah.. its quite a bit difficult to start. There was so much in this book that I don't know where to begin from.
So, the first three books of Wealth of Nations deal about the division of labor and how it has reduced the pressure, simplified life and has enabled man to produce more goods in the same period of time with the same amount of workforce.
Division of labor has indeed simplified life a human in a society. Firstly, there is lesser work pressure on a single person which gives him the opportunity to improve on his skills. Secondly when there was no division of labor like in the case of single weaver, spinner or the tailor, there was wastage of time and there was lesser productivity.
Now, coming to why states where there are more people into primary activities are still developing and states where more people are into secondary and tertiary activities are developed. Well, its because in agriculture, the same farmer ploughs the field, harrows it and does all the work on it. But lets take for example in garment industry, there is division of labour where there is a weaver, a spinner, a tailor and more divisions. There is more productivity and more revenue is generated. Although, this view might be wrong in some cases, but it fits with most.
Now, how does division of labour increases the efficiency. A single nail maker can produce maximum, thousand nails in a day. But ten nail makers when they divide the work can produce four Pounds of nails in a day. A Pound is equivalent to 12000 nails. Hence total production would be 48000 nails. Per person efficiency would calculate to 48000 divided by 10, which is equals to 4800 nails per person.
There are three main parts which make up the total selling price of an item. They are: the profit, the rent and the wages of the labour.
Now, the real cost that is, the price at which an item is prepared is known as its Natural price. The price at which an item is sold is known as its Actual or Market price.
The market price depends on competition in the market. If there is more need of products in the market than the products, then automatically, the market price would be higher than the natural price. If there is lesser need of products in the market than the products, then automatically, the market price would go below the natural price of the commodity.
But if the supply and demand are at level, then market price would be equal to the natural price.
But in either of the last two situations, the businessperson would be a loser in the trade. Only in the first situation would he will make profit.
Well, there is a very renowned phrase of this book:
"It is not from the benevolance of brewer, baker or butcher that we expect our dinner but from their regard to their own interest"
Smith says that we address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their own advantages.
The profit on a commodity depends on the following:
1) variation of price in the basic materials required to make the finished commodity.
2) good or bad fortune of both his rivals and his customers.
3) accidents or happenings ( this is more to be left in god's hands )
Then Smith describes the circulating capital and the fixed capital. The circulating capital of a person is one which he further invests in the trade while the fixed capital is the one which a person buys and is valuable to him but he doesn't sells it or doesn't further trade it.
Then comes the gross revenue and net revenue. The gross revenue is the whole of produce of the land and labour. The net revenue is the profit gained out of a transaction and can also be called the real wealth of a person. My definition of real wealth would be some thing different. *smile*
The gross rent is the rent given by farmer to the landlord and the net rent is the profit that the landlord has really gained after giving all the maintenance and wear and tear of the property.
There was so much in the book that I don't even remember right now. But surely, very interesting, but a little too long. Anyways, very educating and worth the time for someone interested to understand Commerce & economics. *smile*
Nandini Goel
January 22, 2023
I feel like I’m incredibly upset by modern day capitalism. I’ve had a number of jobs where I am competent and able to accomplish the responsibilities given to me, but then a company hires someone above me who generally feels insecure and begins calling me names. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve been bluntly called stupid before someone even met me.
All I want is an 8 to 4 job where I can work on my personal projects and not be called stupid while working, and I’m now working upwards of 60 hours per week trying to turn that into a reality because, while I love my current job and my boss (who is one of the coolest people I’ve ever met), I know when we start to make more revenue, another insecure person who is charismatic will be hired and call me stupid.
I had to read this book to understand why this keeps happening to me and those around me. Where does the basis come from? Where does the pure audacity come from to call someone stupid? Solidarity doesn’t have to be a dirty word. We can make a fuck ton of money together however you think we should, but it’s just standard in my field to cull former teams to gain authority and put new people in the department who won’t question you.
I watched a new boss only months ago fire and entire team because of this and claim no one was as smart as he was.
I’m sorry, but this book explains exactly why this is. There are moments where it gets a bit boring like why countries use one metal in coins over others and why they couldn’t bring those coins out of the country, but in other parts he describes how to providing the working class with more or less food to control population growth and how education helps separating the working from the ruling class. It’s everything I hate about capitalism explained by someone who worships it.
One day, I’d love to have my own small business and make enough money to provide everyone with enough to live on. I want it to be a safe haven from people thinking they’re good enough to call me an idiot, because, in the end, we’re both working class. Middle class is a lie and doesn’t exist, so it doesn’t make sense that we can’t work together to stabilise our market conditions together.
All I want is an 8 to 4 job where I can work on my personal projects and not be called stupid while working, and I’m now working upwards of 60 hours per week trying to turn that into a reality because, while I love my current job and my boss (who is one of the coolest people I’ve ever met), I know when we start to make more revenue, another insecure person who is charismatic will be hired and call me stupid.
I had to read this book to understand why this keeps happening to me and those around me. Where does the basis come from? Where does the pure audacity come from to call someone stupid? Solidarity doesn’t have to be a dirty word. We can make a fuck ton of money together however you think we should, but it’s just standard in my field to cull former teams to gain authority and put new people in the department who won’t question you.
I watched a new boss only months ago fire and entire team because of this and claim no one was as smart as he was.
I’m sorry, but this book explains exactly why this is. There are moments where it gets a bit boring like why countries use one metal in coins over others and why they couldn’t bring those coins out of the country, but in other parts he describes how to providing the working class with more or less food to control population growth and how education helps separating the working from the ruling class. It’s everything I hate about capitalism explained by someone who worships it.
One day, I’d love to have my own small business and make enough money to provide everyone with enough to live on. I want it to be a safe haven from people thinking they’re good enough to call me an idiot, because, in the end, we’re both working class. Middle class is a lie and doesn’t exist, so it doesn’t make sense that we can’t work together to stabilise our market conditions together.
July 1, 2019
A historic and classic work, of course. However, quite boring in parts.
Would recommend reading the first 6 or 7 chapters in book 1 along with books 2 and 3 to glean what you may from the most famous, well-known, and practical sections. The last half of book 1 (about 100 pages) merely concerns the historical value/ price of silver, rent of land, and various types of produce; books 4 and 5 detail many aspects of the mercantile system; interesting, I suppose, if you are the right type of person.
Would recommend reading the first 6 or 7 chapters in book 1 along with books 2 and 3 to glean what you may from the most famous, well-known, and practical sections. The last half of book 1 (about 100 pages) merely concerns the historical value/ price of silver, rent of land, and various types of produce; books 4 and 5 detail many aspects of the mercantile system; interesting, I suppose, if you are the right type of person.
February 24, 2021
The first few chapters are great. Smith grapples with many of the issues economists still talk about today. He lost me in his meticulous attempt at measuring the price of silver and corn over the centuries. Worth a read for the historical significance, but be prepared to skim heavily!
April 16, 2022
i dislike ducks
January 27, 2021
Sweeping in scope, excruciating in detail. There is something for everyone, but everything for no one. Who indeed could have equal interest in the changing price of corn, the theory of political economy, the principles of economics, trade policy, and the advice for support of state for church? A magisterial work no doubt, but not one for the modern reader. Why I read it myself is not perfectly clear.
June 20, 2023
even the ming novel dream of red chamber has a more sophisticated theory of economics, human nature, and property than this shit.
Read
May 3, 2022What is this book about?
This book is basically about the fundamentals of what we today call capitalism, the free market economy and ‘the invisible hand’.
It is a very long and boring book. However the way Smith uses mathematical examples as well as anecdotes makes the reading bearable.
In the 18th century employers had the understanding that underpaying laborers was good for business but the writer refuted this practice saying:
We have pay the workers more than their basic needs, so that they can spend on the goods thus increasing the consumer base for goods sold by the employers. Also the workers being paid more could educate their children thus creating a better pool of employees in the future.
Adam Smith was on the side of less or negligible government interventions in prices and interest rates, introducing the readers with the ‘free market forces’ or the ‘invisible hands’ that would bring them under a dynamic equilibrium.
In contrast Karl Marx’s ‘Das Kapital’ which is the basis of communism, strongly advocates that the government intervenes in everything about the economy.
Key takeaways
https://www.investopedia.com/updates/...
https://www.adamsmith.org/the-wealth-...
The central thesis of Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" is that our individual need to fulfill self-interest results in societal benefit, in what is known as his "invisible hand".
This, combined with the division of labor in an economy, results in a web of mutual interdepencies that promotes stability and prosperity through the market mechanism.
Smith rejects government interference in market activities, and instead states governments should serve just 3 functions: protect national borders; enforce civil law; and engage in public works (e.g. education). When governments grant subsidies or monopolies to favoured producers, or shelter them behind tariff walls, they can charge higher prices. In essence the governments job is to create a secure environment to do business.
The radical thinker
The prevailing concept of how nations become rich was:
Hord as much gold and silver as possible
Increase export as much as possible
Resiste imports as much as possible
Adam Smith prescribed:
To allow free flow of exports and imports
The measure of wealth is not gold or silver but the flow of goods and service that we later called gross domestic product (GDP). Thus Adam Smith was the founder of GDP as a concept.
Now just think about it. How revolutionary his thought was!
Specialization and competitive advantage
Although it sounds common sense today, in those days self-sufficiency was the norm, meaning someone grew vegetables and everything himself , even making pins. But Adam Smith with a funny story of a pin maker illustrates how he by specializing in this particular trade, he can benefit more as well as the economy.
Countries should do what they are best at, and trade their products. Restrictions on international trade inevitably make both sides poorer.
To drive home the damaging nature of tariffs, Smith used the example of making wine in Scotland. He pointed out that good grapes could be grown in Scotland in hothouses, but the extra costs of heating would make Scottish wine 30 times more expensive than French wines. Far better, he reasoned, would be to trade something Scotland had an abundance of such as wool, in return for French wine
Investing
Adam Smith recommends that people should invest part of their earnings back to grow their business instead of spending it all. Again to that end the government must make a secure environment where businessmen have the confidence that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their sacrifice or investment in the distant future. Also the governement should ease on taxation to allow investing.
Enlightened Self-Interest
In his famous example, a butcher does not supply meat based on good-hearted intentions, but because he profits by selling meat. If the meat he sells is poor, he will not have repeat customers and, thus, no profit. Therefore, it's in the butcher's interest to sell good meat at a price that customers are willing to pay, so that both parties benefit in every transaction. Smith believed the ability to think long-term would curb most businesses from abusing customers. When that wasn't enough, he looked to the government to enforce laws.
Solid Currency and Free-Market Economy
The third element Smith proposed was a solid currency twinned with free-market principles. By backing currency with hard metals, Smith hoped to curtail the government's ability to depreciate currency by circulating more of it to pay for wars or other wasteful expenditures.
However this concept of the ‘gold standard is’ not currently used by any government. Britain stopped using the gold standard in 1931, and the U.S. followed suit in 1933, finally abandoning the remnants of the system in 1973.
Conclusion
Adam Smith overturned the miserly view of mercantilism or protectionism (using tariffs) and gave us a vision of plenty and freedom for all. The free market he envisioned, though not yet fully realized, may have done more to raise the global standard of living than any single idea in history.
How is it useful to you in your :
Life
x
Business
x
Careers
The knowledge of this book is so common knoweldge today that we don’t ask where it came from. However if you have read this review it will help you a lot in your career because you will be able to impress people with your knowledge of the fundamentals of capitalism and thus economics.
Conclusion
Frankly I could not complete reading this book. I think I left it half way or 2/3rd. The old long winded English of those days gets on your nerves. But even reading this much I got a good idea of the greatness of this book and the writer. Such minds and such works are rare.
However I am very happy with this book review because I wrote it for myself in order to but a cap on my incomplete contact with this great man’s work. I am happy now that I understood and remember all the main points from this book.
I hope you too found this review succinct and useful.
My life
As for my business and work life, this week I just realized that I had become distinctively older in my strategies that is I am more tolerant, thinking more long term.
Whereas before work was a dopamine game now it is more for endorphin. Let me explain. Before like a driven ambitious young man work was to get a kick through higher pay, more challenges, more kick. But now I think like a older man wiser, slower, having forsaken ambition and embraced usefulness to others. In this way now my motivation is to leave a legacy behind even if it means less or even no pay. It also means I am willing to get bored, wrong, fail, change if it is required for the greater good. Gee. I am getting old.
This book is basically about the fundamentals of what we today call capitalism, the free market economy and ‘the invisible hand’.
It is a very long and boring book. However the way Smith uses mathematical examples as well as anecdotes makes the reading bearable.
In the 18th century employers had the understanding that underpaying laborers was good for business but the writer refuted this practice saying:
We have pay the workers more than their basic needs, so that they can spend on the goods thus increasing the consumer base for goods sold by the employers. Also the workers being paid more could educate their children thus creating a better pool of employees in the future.
Adam Smith was on the side of less or negligible government interventions in prices and interest rates, introducing the readers with the ‘free market forces’ or the ‘invisible hands’ that would bring them under a dynamic equilibrium.
In contrast Karl Marx’s ‘Das Kapital’ which is the basis of communism, strongly advocates that the government intervenes in everything about the economy.
Key takeaways
https://www.investopedia.com/updates/...
https://www.adamsmith.org/the-wealth-...
The central thesis of Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" is that our individual need to fulfill self-interest results in societal benefit, in what is known as his "invisible hand".
This, combined with the division of labor in an economy, results in a web of mutual interdepencies that promotes stability and prosperity through the market mechanism.
Smith rejects government interference in market activities, and instead states governments should serve just 3 functions: protect national borders; enforce civil law; and engage in public works (e.g. education). When governments grant subsidies or monopolies to favoured producers, or shelter them behind tariff walls, they can charge higher prices. In essence the governments job is to create a secure environment to do business.
The radical thinker
The prevailing concept of how nations become rich was:
Hord as much gold and silver as possible
Increase export as much as possible
Resiste imports as much as possible
Adam Smith prescribed:
To allow free flow of exports and imports
The measure of wealth is not gold or silver but the flow of goods and service that we later called gross domestic product (GDP). Thus Adam Smith was the founder of GDP as a concept.
Now just think about it. How revolutionary his thought was!
Specialization and competitive advantage
Although it sounds common sense today, in those days self-sufficiency was the norm, meaning someone grew vegetables and everything himself , even making pins. But Adam Smith with a funny story of a pin maker illustrates how he by specializing in this particular trade, he can benefit more as well as the economy.
Countries should do what they are best at, and trade their products. Restrictions on international trade inevitably make both sides poorer.
To drive home the damaging nature of tariffs, Smith used the example of making wine in Scotland. He pointed out that good grapes could be grown in Scotland in hothouses, but the extra costs of heating would make Scottish wine 30 times more expensive than French wines. Far better, he reasoned, would be to trade something Scotland had an abundance of such as wool, in return for French wine
Investing
Adam Smith recommends that people should invest part of their earnings back to grow their business instead of spending it all. Again to that end the government must make a secure environment where businessmen have the confidence that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their sacrifice or investment in the distant future. Also the governement should ease on taxation to allow investing.
Enlightened Self-Interest
In his famous example, a butcher does not supply meat based on good-hearted intentions, but because he profits by selling meat. If the meat he sells is poor, he will not have repeat customers and, thus, no profit. Therefore, it's in the butcher's interest to sell good meat at a price that customers are willing to pay, so that both parties benefit in every transaction. Smith believed the ability to think long-term would curb most businesses from abusing customers. When that wasn't enough, he looked to the government to enforce laws.
Solid Currency and Free-Market Economy
The third element Smith proposed was a solid currency twinned with free-market principles. By backing currency with hard metals, Smith hoped to curtail the government's ability to depreciate currency by circulating more of it to pay for wars or other wasteful expenditures.
However this concept of the ‘gold standard is’ not currently used by any government. Britain stopped using the gold standard in 1931, and the U.S. followed suit in 1933, finally abandoning the remnants of the system in 1973.
Conclusion
Adam Smith overturned the miserly view of mercantilism or protectionism (using tariffs) and gave us a vision of plenty and freedom for all. The free market he envisioned, though not yet fully realized, may have done more to raise the global standard of living than any single idea in history.
How is it useful to you in your :
Life
x
Business
x
Careers
The knowledge of this book is so common knoweldge today that we don’t ask where it came from. However if you have read this review it will help you a lot in your career because you will be able to impress people with your knowledge of the fundamentals of capitalism and thus economics.
Conclusion
Frankly I could not complete reading this book. I think I left it half way or 2/3rd. The old long winded English of those days gets on your nerves. But even reading this much I got a good idea of the greatness of this book and the writer. Such minds and such works are rare.
However I am very happy with this book review because I wrote it for myself in order to but a cap on my incomplete contact with this great man’s work. I am happy now that I understood and remember all the main points from this book.
I hope you too found this review succinct and useful.
My life
As for my business and work life, this week I just realized that I had become distinctively older in my strategies that is I am more tolerant, thinking more long term.
Whereas before work was a dopamine game now it is more for endorphin. Let me explain. Before like a driven ambitious young man work was to get a kick through higher pay, more challenges, more kick. But now I think like a older man wiser, slower, having forsaken ambition and embraced usefulness to others. In this way now my motivation is to leave a legacy behind even if it means less or even no pay. It also means I am willing to get bored, wrong, fail, change if it is required for the greater good. Gee. I am getting old.
June 13, 2021
It’s not an easy read, language being of 18th century and due to no availability of infographics at that time. Dr. Smith does wonderful job of creating lectures to tell you what factors help grow economy and how nations are differing in their progress.
When you read it, you find the collective wisdom on economy in the pages of the book. It is the book which will resolve your doubts and ready your fundamentals. Read it once! Read it twice!
When you read it, you find the collective wisdom on economy in the pages of the book. It is the book which will resolve your doubts and ready your fundamentals. Read it once! Read it twice!
August 7, 2025
Smith preempts everything Marx says I guess. Objective value of labour theory still seems a bit bogus to me though even when it is interpreted in a positive light. A quarter of this book can be described as Smith saying "The value of labour is objective**********" or "the value of labour is objective except for when it is determined by man which it always is" like, that is not helpful.
Aside from this Smith makes a bunch of liberal arguments, aside from this one curious portion where he states that those who earn by rent and those who earn by wages both have the general interest of society at heart but those who earn by profit do not because the earning of profit is exterior to the general condition of society. Very interesting Mr. Smith.
Smith also hates the government, monopolies and corporations, because they are both anathema to the free market. Neat I guess.
October 17, 2025
it's odd to me to be rating a book that laid the groundwork for modern capitalism to take hold. Its amazing to see concepts written about theorized, and quite frankly, fantasized about, come to fruition all these centuries later. almost as if fact is not stranger than fiction.
August 4, 2025
The father of capitalism-a true genius and the pride of Scotland. Highly recommend to everyone.
April 23, 2017
As a layman in economics, I have to stand in awe of this book. This is mainly for two reasons:
First and foremost, the book is extremely accessible and simple to read. By this I do not mean that to understand what the author preaches one just has to read it all the way, like the average fantasy story; some questions, if not all, deserve and require the reader to think for himself so that he can form a correct picture of the dynamics of Smith's economics as a whole, and not just "listen" to his arguments. What I mean is that Adam Smith is extremely systematic and organized when exposing his arguments, which build up, one by one, into his theory, so that even with no background in economics or political economy, one can grasp it reasonably well.
Second of all, this book is not approached from a purely economical perspective, but is obviously injected with a good dose of philosophy, particularly regarding human morals, ethics and behavior. Adam Smith's arguments for his economical system rest on the moral pronouncements which he develops in his "Theory of Moral Sentiments" - it rests on such bases as "humans want social acceptance", and also "human action is mainly guided by self-interest". Any person who has came into contact with humans will have no trouble accepting most of these arguments. That being said, Adam Smith has been shown to be not only a brilliant analyst, but also a very moral person, desiring equality in society, but also recognizing some of the limitations of the capitalist system.
I don't think that Adam Smith was right in every single thing, as history itself has shown. As far as I can tell, Smith has put too much faith in human nature, and more than 200 years later, Smith's capitalist system was modified in accordance with our own defects as humans. Nevertheless, Smith is not blind, and his quote resonates even today:
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
Can we organize ourselves in a system such that each individual can produce to the whole of the society and not suffer at the hands of the powerful few? Can money be properly distributed through mutual, healthy competition? Can we humans make use of our intelligence, productiveness, and creativity without having to experience famine, disease and death? Can human nature adapt to the better good? Equality, although so intuitively healthy and necessary for the continuance of humans on this planet, seems like an unreachable, distant dream. Harmony in the society, if it exists, must be something achievable only after a nightmarish journey of human suffering. It turns out that dreams are seldom, or never, absolutely real; but perhaps they can be made pretty close. A proper, egalitarian economical system should be of major concern for those who feel, in the least, a spark of love for those fellow beings who walk this planet with them.
First and foremost, the book is extremely accessible and simple to read. By this I do not mean that to understand what the author preaches one just has to read it all the way, like the average fantasy story; some questions, if not all, deserve and require the reader to think for himself so that he can form a correct picture of the dynamics of Smith's economics as a whole, and not just "listen" to his arguments. What I mean is that Adam Smith is extremely systematic and organized when exposing his arguments, which build up, one by one, into his theory, so that even with no background in economics or political economy, one can grasp it reasonably well.
Second of all, this book is not approached from a purely economical perspective, but is obviously injected with a good dose of philosophy, particularly regarding human morals, ethics and behavior. Adam Smith's arguments for his economical system rest on the moral pronouncements which he develops in his "Theory of Moral Sentiments" - it rests on such bases as "humans want social acceptance", and also "human action is mainly guided by self-interest". Any person who has came into contact with humans will have no trouble accepting most of these arguments. That being said, Adam Smith has been shown to be not only a brilliant analyst, but also a very moral person, desiring equality in society, but also recognizing some of the limitations of the capitalist system.
I don't think that Adam Smith was right in every single thing, as history itself has shown. As far as I can tell, Smith has put too much faith in human nature, and more than 200 years later, Smith's capitalist system was modified in accordance with our own defects as humans. Nevertheless, Smith is not blind, and his quote resonates even today:
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
Can we organize ourselves in a system such that each individual can produce to the whole of the society and not suffer at the hands of the powerful few? Can money be properly distributed through mutual, healthy competition? Can we humans make use of our intelligence, productiveness, and creativity without having to experience famine, disease and death? Can human nature adapt to the better good? Equality, although so intuitively healthy and necessary for the continuance of humans on this planet, seems like an unreachable, distant dream. Harmony in the society, if it exists, must be something achievable only after a nightmarish journey of human suffering. It turns out that dreams are seldom, or never, absolutely real; but perhaps they can be made pretty close. A proper, egalitarian economical system should be of major concern for those who feel, in the least, a spark of love for those fellow beings who walk this planet with them.
November 9, 2020
The outstanding assert “Wealth of nations” address the needs of an individual and the Labor struggle in the different class of society. Social imbalance reciprocated with the slice of wages. The bargaining power of an individual decision based on the amount of money in the hand, spending money inherited with earning capacity that also decides for tomorrow's demand. In my point of view, demand creates an individual’s needs and wants, and these two paradoxical attributes are hidden behind the individual, social, and national wealth to establish the market potential for the consumers. Consumer behavior cycle roles in terms of money compounding through various sources such as daily wage, small and medium investment, money lending process, credit, etc. The possibility of standard competitive demand can be upward sloping and violate the law of the general principle of economics, which incorporates both income and price effects as the price of the good rises and consumers purchase more of substitute goods (Giffen paradox).
The struggle of labor is very uncertain and earning extra or make surplus money for savings or new investment or buying asserts is a dark side of the labor force, labor exploitation by the capitalist class fully hide the surplus earnings of labor. Capitalism expects to earn more income and fails to create demand constrain and allow the other classes to spend money. Gold and silver are not the real measures of a nation's wealth. The stagnation of demand and barrier of bargaining power can be solved by the labor’s real income and wealth and this will lead to the stability and prosperity of the market mechanism.
The struggle of labor is very uncertain and earning extra or make surplus money for savings or new investment or buying asserts is a dark side of the labor force, labor exploitation by the capitalist class fully hide the surplus earnings of labor. Capitalism expects to earn more income and fails to create demand constrain and allow the other classes to spend money. Gold and silver are not the real measures of a nation's wealth. The stagnation of demand and barrier of bargaining power can be solved by the labor’s real income and wealth and this will lead to the stability and prosperity of the market mechanism.
May 31, 2015
A very challenging but rewarding read. I did start it before but found this edition much easier to stick with. I read a lot about economic history already but the genius of Adam Smith is his passive explications of every day trade in its influencing conditions. The book can be numbingly in-depth, porridge for the mind but there in lies its goodness, its intellectual nourishment. So many economics books are just reactions to the zietgeist of the times in which they're published but Smiths work is unsentimental and unsparing in its dissection of the factors which inspire and retard trade. The conclusions arrived at by meticulous examination read like eternal truths. The only downside to this work is having to fixate on the different measurement conventions of the late 18th century. However that effort sharpens the mind so sections that in modern prose could have been passively rushed through end up being more thoroughly understood from having to be reread.
This is not a joyous entertainment but if you suspect that life is an everyday trade then it is an essential read that can only enrich your understanding.
This is not a joyous entertainment but if you suspect that life is an everyday trade then it is an essential read that can only enrich your understanding.
November 4, 2017
Don't. Read excerpts.
It's a dull book – not a criticisms of its ideas, what it's led to, or anything like that, but to read it today, without a direct interest, is tedious. Good start, nice bit about banking in book 2, some interesting history in book 3, but overall it's longwinded. Areas where it comes to point in a succinct manner are the exception and the style is nothing remarkable.
It's a dull book – not a criticisms of its ideas, what it's led to, or anything like that, but to read it today, without a direct interest, is tedious. Good start, nice bit about banking in book 2, some interesting history in book 3, but overall it's longwinded. Areas where it comes to point in a succinct manner are the exception and the style is nothing remarkable.
Read
November 23, 2020I'm not going to rate this edition because I didn't read it. I only read from Book One of this Adam Smith book. It seems like old-fashioned economics, but I'm sure many of its principles are relevant today.
July 30, 2021
economics is shit
November 21, 2023
Biography of the Author:
Adam Smith was a Scottish economist and philosopher during the Scottish Enlightenment and is considered a pioneer in political economy. He is often called "The Father of Economics" or "The Father of Capitalism". He authored two influential works - The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) - with the latter being regarded as his magnum opus. It was the first comprehensive and modern work that treated economics as an academic discipline and provided insights into various economic theories, including Smith's idea of absolute advantage.
Smith believed that the distribution of wealth and power should be explained through natural, political, social, economic, and technological factors and the interactions between them rather than by God's will. He studied social philosophy at the University of Glasgow and Balliol College, Oxford, where he was one of the first students to receive scholarships established by fellow Scot John Snell. Smith went on to deliver a successful series of public lectures at the University of Edinburgh and collaborated with David Hume.
Smith later became a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow, where he wrote and published The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In his later life, he took a tutoring position that enabled him to travel throughout Europe, where he met other intellectual leaders of his time.
Book Format:
Publisher: Alfred A. Knopf
Copyright © 1991 by Everyman's Library
Pages: 620 Pages
This book contains four book
Book Report:
Adam Smith's ideas have had a profound impact on the world. His philosophy of the capitalist financial system has influenced how countries govern their economies and has led to the development of academic courses ranging from secondary school to post-secondary education. During the Industrial Revolution, factory owners embraced Smith's ideas, which promised to help them make a profit and spurred the growth of capitalism.
Karl Marx witnessed the 1848 Revolution and experienced the Industrial Revolution. He developed the theory of communism as a countermeasure against capitalism.
Smith's economic philosophy clashed with Marx's economic philosophy and post-World War II, dividing the world between capitalism and communism.
This paper discusses Smith's economic philosophy on managing a nation's economy.
On page 12, Smith says, "Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog. Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another that this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give it for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires."
On page 13, the author says, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, or the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but their advantages."
On page 25, the author says, "Value in use the other value in exchange. The things with the greatest value in use frequently have little or no value in exchange; on the contrary, those with the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water, but it will purchase scarce anything; scarce anything can be exchanged for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce value in use, but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it."
On pages 25-6, the author says, "Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's labour can supply them."
On page 26, the author says, "Therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which us enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities."
On page 27, the author says, "The butcher seldom carries his beef or his mutton to the baker in order to exchange them for bread or for beer; but they carries them to the market, where he exchanges them for money, and afterwards exchange that money for bread and for beer. The quantity of money which he gets for them regulates, too, the quantity of bread and beer which he can afterwards purchase. It is more natural and obvious to him, therefore, to estimate their value by the quantity of money, the commodity for which he immediately exchanges them, than by that of bread and beer, the commodities for which he can exchange them only by the intervention of another commodity."
On page 44, the author says, "Labour measures the value not only of that part of price which resolves itself into labour, but of that which resolves itself into rent, and of that which resolve itself into profit." Karl Marx says the owner of the means of production exploits workers' labour power by means of price."
On page 57, the author says, "As soon as land becomes private property, the landlord demands a share of all the produce which the labour can either raise, or collect from it. His rent makes the first deduction from the produce of the labour which is employed upon land." Jean Jacques Rousseau says private property is the source of inequality and creates a system of class in society.
On page 65, the author says, "The maintenance of the labouring poor is fast decaying. The difference between the genius of the British constitution which protects and governs North America, and that of the mercantile company which oppresses and domineers in the East Indies, cannot perhaps be better illustrated than by the different state of those countries. The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition that they are going fast backwards."
When I read Smith's statement, it brought a chill to my bones that England and other Western countries deem non-European countries that they cannot become developed nations like Western countries. For example, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi I wanted to make Iran a first-class nation. In 1979, England, France, West Germany, and the U.S. plotted a plan to topple the Pahlavi Dynasty and replace it with the Islamic Republic of Iran of Khomeini. As a result of the plot of the Western countries, Iran turned into the Stone Age.
On page 119, the author says, "if an equal proportion of people were educated at the public expense, the competition would soon be so great as to sink very much their pecuniary reward. It might then not be worth any man's while to educate his son to either of those profession at his own expense. They would be entirely abandoned to such as had been educated by those public charities."
Another factor that reduces social inequality in society and causes a society to move toward an egalitarian society. It is the power of education. Max Weber says that higher education causes people to move from one class to another.
On page 120, the author says, "That unprosperous race of men commonly called men of letters are pretty much in the situation which lawyers and physicians probably would be in upon the foregoing supposition...They have generally, therefore, been educated at the public expense, and their numbers are everywhere so great as common to reduce the price of their labour to a very paltry recompense."
In his book "United States of Socialism," author Dinesh D'Souza made a statement similar to that of Adam Smith, claiming that during the American Revolution of 1776, people of letters had no role to play in the United States and that many of them fled to Canada.
Adam Smith is often associated with conservative values, which some individuals who share his views believe oppose higher education. However, the reality is that acquiring higher education provides individuals with knowledge, and knowledge is power that can be used to improve the lives of everyone in their communities. Contrary to what Smith and Dinesh may advocate, it is better to live in intellectual communities where reason and logic guide decisions that are in harmony with others rather than promoting ignorance.
On page 120, Smith asserts, "yet more indigent men of letters who write for bread was not taken out of the market. Before the invention of the art of printing, a scholar and a beggar seem to have been terms very nearly synonymous. The different governors of the universities before that time appear to have often granted licences to their scholars to beg."
On page 327, the author says, "It has been the principal cause of the rapid progress of our American colonies towards wealth and greatness that almost their whole capitals have hitherto been employed in agriculture."
Smith advocates for the slavery system because white people gain wealth from slavery.
In conclusion, I have never seen such a racist and evil person as Adam Smith, who uses tools of economics to exploit other powerless individuals and countries and justify it using economic progress for England. Smith was not any different than Hitler. The only difference between Hitler and Smith is that Hitler believed the Aryan race was destined to dominate other races. In contrast, Smith believed white people were destined to dominate other races by building economic empires worldwide.
Adam Smith was a Scottish economist and philosopher during the Scottish Enlightenment and is considered a pioneer in political economy. He is often called "The Father of Economics" or "The Father of Capitalism". He authored two influential works - The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) - with the latter being regarded as his magnum opus. It was the first comprehensive and modern work that treated economics as an academic discipline and provided insights into various economic theories, including Smith's idea of absolute advantage.
Smith believed that the distribution of wealth and power should be explained through natural, political, social, economic, and technological factors and the interactions between them rather than by God's will. He studied social philosophy at the University of Glasgow and Balliol College, Oxford, where he was one of the first students to receive scholarships established by fellow Scot John Snell. Smith went on to deliver a successful series of public lectures at the University of Edinburgh and collaborated with David Hume.
Smith later became a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow, where he wrote and published The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In his later life, he took a tutoring position that enabled him to travel throughout Europe, where he met other intellectual leaders of his time.
Book Format:
Publisher: Alfred A. Knopf
Copyright © 1991 by Everyman's Library
Pages: 620 Pages
This book contains four book
Book Report:
Adam Smith's ideas have had a profound impact on the world. His philosophy of the capitalist financial system has influenced how countries govern their economies and has led to the development of academic courses ranging from secondary school to post-secondary education. During the Industrial Revolution, factory owners embraced Smith's ideas, which promised to help them make a profit and spurred the growth of capitalism.
Karl Marx witnessed the 1848 Revolution and experienced the Industrial Revolution. He developed the theory of communism as a countermeasure against capitalism.
Smith's economic philosophy clashed with Marx's economic philosophy and post-World War II, dividing the world between capitalism and communism.
This paper discusses Smith's economic philosophy on managing a nation's economy.
On page 12, Smith says, "Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog. Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another that this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give it for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires."
On page 13, the author says, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, or the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but their advantages."
On page 25, the author says, "Value in use the other value in exchange. The things with the greatest value in use frequently have little or no value in exchange; on the contrary, those with the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water, but it will purchase scarce anything; scarce anything can be exchanged for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce value in use, but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it."
On pages 25-6, the author says, "Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's labour can supply them."
On page 26, the author says, "Therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which us enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities."
On page 27, the author says, "The butcher seldom carries his beef or his mutton to the baker in order to exchange them for bread or for beer; but they carries them to the market, where he exchanges them for money, and afterwards exchange that money for bread and for beer. The quantity of money which he gets for them regulates, too, the quantity of bread and beer which he can afterwards purchase. It is more natural and obvious to him, therefore, to estimate their value by the quantity of money, the commodity for which he immediately exchanges them, than by that of bread and beer, the commodities for which he can exchange them only by the intervention of another commodity."
On page 44, the author says, "Labour measures the value not only of that part of price which resolves itself into labour, but of that which resolves itself into rent, and of that which resolve itself into profit." Karl Marx says the owner of the means of production exploits workers' labour power by means of price."
On page 57, the author says, "As soon as land becomes private property, the landlord demands a share of all the produce which the labour can either raise, or collect from it. His rent makes the first deduction from the produce of the labour which is employed upon land." Jean Jacques Rousseau says private property is the source of inequality and creates a system of class in society.
On page 65, the author says, "The maintenance of the labouring poor is fast decaying. The difference between the genius of the British constitution which protects and governs North America, and that of the mercantile company which oppresses and domineers in the East Indies, cannot perhaps be better illustrated than by the different state of those countries. The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition that they are going fast backwards."
When I read Smith's statement, it brought a chill to my bones that England and other Western countries deem non-European countries that they cannot become developed nations like Western countries. For example, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi I wanted to make Iran a first-class nation. In 1979, England, France, West Germany, and the U.S. plotted a plan to topple the Pahlavi Dynasty and replace it with the Islamic Republic of Iran of Khomeini. As a result of the plot of the Western countries, Iran turned into the Stone Age.
On page 119, the author says, "if an equal proportion of people were educated at the public expense, the competition would soon be so great as to sink very much their pecuniary reward. It might then not be worth any man's while to educate his son to either of those profession at his own expense. They would be entirely abandoned to such as had been educated by those public charities."
Another factor that reduces social inequality in society and causes a society to move toward an egalitarian society. It is the power of education. Max Weber says that higher education causes people to move from one class to another.
On page 120, the author says, "That unprosperous race of men commonly called men of letters are pretty much in the situation which lawyers and physicians probably would be in upon the foregoing supposition...They have generally, therefore, been educated at the public expense, and their numbers are everywhere so great as common to reduce the price of their labour to a very paltry recompense."
In his book "United States of Socialism," author Dinesh D'Souza made a statement similar to that of Adam Smith, claiming that during the American Revolution of 1776, people of letters had no role to play in the United States and that many of them fled to Canada.
Adam Smith is often associated with conservative values, which some individuals who share his views believe oppose higher education. However, the reality is that acquiring higher education provides individuals with knowledge, and knowledge is power that can be used to improve the lives of everyone in their communities. Contrary to what Smith and Dinesh may advocate, it is better to live in intellectual communities where reason and logic guide decisions that are in harmony with others rather than promoting ignorance.
On page 120, Smith asserts, "yet more indigent men of letters who write for bread was not taken out of the market. Before the invention of the art of printing, a scholar and a beggar seem to have been terms very nearly synonymous. The different governors of the universities before that time appear to have often granted licences to their scholars to beg."
On page 327, the author says, "It has been the principal cause of the rapid progress of our American colonies towards wealth and greatness that almost their whole capitals have hitherto been employed in agriculture."
Smith advocates for the slavery system because white people gain wealth from slavery.
In conclusion, I have never seen such a racist and evil person as Adam Smith, who uses tools of economics to exploit other powerless individuals and countries and justify it using economic progress for England. Smith was not any different than Hitler. The only difference between Hitler and Smith is that Hitler believed the Aryan race was destined to dominate other races. In contrast, Smith believed white people were destined to dominate other races by building economic empires worldwide.
November 30, 2025
Adam Smith is often portrayed as a champion of free markets and economic freedom yet many of his arguments contain ambiguities, contradictions, and blind spots that reveal the limitations of 18th century economic thought. What makes the book valuable for me is not only what Smith got right but also what his framework failed to fully address especially regarding trade policies and power relations.
One area where Smith is surprisingly controversial is the corn trade. His argument for allowing a freer grain market, with fewer restrictions and fewer export bans, is built on the idea that the market would stabilize prices and increase overall welfare. Yet Smith also acknowledges that fluctuations in corn prices directly shape the living conditions of the poor, who spend most of their income on bread. This tension exposes a deeper issue in his thinking: while he advocates for efficiency and “natural price” he never fully confronts the social consequences of exposing essential food supplies to market volatility. Modern readers can’t help but see echoes of this problem in today’s debates about food speculation, price spikes, and unequal access to basic nutrition. To me, Smith’s optimism about market self-regulation feels overly simplified when the commodity in question is something as vital and politically sensitive as corn.
His discussion of foreign trade is equally layered. Smith is often quoted for promoting free trade, but a careful reading shows that he supports it only under specific conditions. He understands that international commerce increases variety, reduces costs, and pushes countries toward specialization. However, he also warns that trade can distort domestic priorities, enrich merchants more than workers, and create dependencies that weaken local industries. He even admits that governments sometimes have legitimate reasons to intervene, especially in cases tied to national defense or structural imbalance. This nuance is frequently ignored by modern advocates of absolute free trade, who use Smith almost as a symbol rather than a thinker with reservations. What I appreciate is that Smith recognizes the political dimension of trade, a recognition that feels oddly modern when we examine contemporary tensions around supply chains, global labor inequality, and the dominance of multinational corporations.
Another revealing aspect of The Wealth of Nations is Smith’s discussion of Arabs and Tartars, whom he uses as examples of nomadic or pastoral societies. Smith argues that such groups tend to remain economically backward because they rely on herding rather than settled agriculture, and he claims that this lifestyle limits the development of commerce, stable institutions, and long term capital accumulation. However, this characterization reflects more of an 18th century Eurocentric worldview than an objective economic analysis. Smith overlooks the fact that Arab and Tartar traders historically operated some of the most sophisticated long-distance trade networks across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Caravans, desert trade routes, and mobile commercial systems allowed these groups to connect empires long before European states built similar networks.
For me, Smith’s portrayal exposes the cultural biases embedded in early economic thought. He tends to equate “progress” with sedentary, European style market structures, ignoring the adaptive, flexible, and highly resilient economic systems developed by nomadic societies. His assumption that pastoral groups cannot accumulate wealth or develop commercial sophistication simply doesn’t align with historical evidence ,from the Arab merchants who shaped Indian Ocean commerce, to Tartar intermediaries who facilitated trade across the Eurasian steppe. In other words, Smith’s framework struggles to account for economic models that fall outside the agricultural to industrial trajectory he saw in Europe.
Taken together, these aspects show that The Wealth of Nations is not a flawless vision of market rationality but rather an early attempt to describe a system that is far more complex than Smith himself could fully capture. His insights into productivity, incentives, and trade are undeniably influential, yet the book also reflects the biases and structural limitations of its historical moment.
One area where Smith is surprisingly controversial is the corn trade. His argument for allowing a freer grain market, with fewer restrictions and fewer export bans, is built on the idea that the market would stabilize prices and increase overall welfare. Yet Smith also acknowledges that fluctuations in corn prices directly shape the living conditions of the poor, who spend most of their income on bread. This tension exposes a deeper issue in his thinking: while he advocates for efficiency and “natural price” he never fully confronts the social consequences of exposing essential food supplies to market volatility. Modern readers can’t help but see echoes of this problem in today’s debates about food speculation, price spikes, and unequal access to basic nutrition. To me, Smith’s optimism about market self-regulation feels overly simplified when the commodity in question is something as vital and politically sensitive as corn.
His discussion of foreign trade is equally layered. Smith is often quoted for promoting free trade, but a careful reading shows that he supports it only under specific conditions. He understands that international commerce increases variety, reduces costs, and pushes countries toward specialization. However, he also warns that trade can distort domestic priorities, enrich merchants more than workers, and create dependencies that weaken local industries. He even admits that governments sometimes have legitimate reasons to intervene, especially in cases tied to national defense or structural imbalance. This nuance is frequently ignored by modern advocates of absolute free trade, who use Smith almost as a symbol rather than a thinker with reservations. What I appreciate is that Smith recognizes the political dimension of trade, a recognition that feels oddly modern when we examine contemporary tensions around supply chains, global labor inequality, and the dominance of multinational corporations.
Another revealing aspect of The Wealth of Nations is Smith’s discussion of Arabs and Tartars, whom he uses as examples of nomadic or pastoral societies. Smith argues that such groups tend to remain economically backward because they rely on herding rather than settled agriculture, and he claims that this lifestyle limits the development of commerce, stable institutions, and long term capital accumulation. However, this characterization reflects more of an 18th century Eurocentric worldview than an objective economic analysis. Smith overlooks the fact that Arab and Tartar traders historically operated some of the most sophisticated long-distance trade networks across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Caravans, desert trade routes, and mobile commercial systems allowed these groups to connect empires long before European states built similar networks.
For me, Smith’s portrayal exposes the cultural biases embedded in early economic thought. He tends to equate “progress” with sedentary, European style market structures, ignoring the adaptive, flexible, and highly resilient economic systems developed by nomadic societies. His assumption that pastoral groups cannot accumulate wealth or develop commercial sophistication simply doesn’t align with historical evidence ,from the Arab merchants who shaped Indian Ocean commerce, to Tartar intermediaries who facilitated trade across the Eurasian steppe. In other words, Smith’s framework struggles to account for economic models that fall outside the agricultural to industrial trajectory he saw in Europe.
Taken together, these aspects show that The Wealth of Nations is not a flawless vision of market rationality but rather an early attempt to describe a system that is far more complex than Smith himself could fully capture. His insights into productivity, incentives, and trade are undeniably influential, yet the book also reflects the biases and structural limitations of its historical moment.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 4, 2025
This is not a book you read casually. It’s one you study, revisit, wrestle with, and slowly grow to appreciate over time. And honestly? I kinda loved that challenge.
Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations is often referenced but rarely read in full and I get why. It’s dense, 18th-century English, and incredibly detailed. But if you give it the time and patience it deserves, what you find is a groundbreaking, nuanced, and even surprisingly modern exploration of how economies work and more importantly, how people behave within them.
The core of Smith’s argument is deceptively simple: individual self-interest, when operating in a system of fair competition and minimal interference, can lead to collective benefit. It’s the classic “invisible hand” idea. But there’s so much more nuance than people give him credit for.
He doesn’t blindly glorify capitalism. He’s very aware of the dangers of monopolies, exploitative labor, and the unequal distribution of power in markets. He talks about the importance of public goods, education, infrastructure, and the moral dimensions of work. It’s clear that Smith cared not only about efficiency but also about ethics. And that surprised me in the best way.
What really stood out to me was how this book isn’t just about money or markets, it’s about human behavior. About habits, incentives, productivity, and the psychology behind how people trade, produce, and consume. You see glimpses of sociology, political philosophy, even communication theory in how he discusses the formation of social norms, national identity, and economic narratives.
Yes, it’s long. Yes, it’s technical in parts. But it’s also rich, layered, and honestly… kind of thrilling once you get into it. It’s a book that changed how I view economics, not just as numbers or policies, but as a reflection of human nature, power, and culture.
Would I recommend it to everyone? Not casually. But if you’re curious, intellectually hungry, and ready to engage with one of the most important minds in modern economic thought.. definitely go for it. Take it slow. Annotate. Pause. And trust that the payoff is worth it.
Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations is often referenced but rarely read in full and I get why. It’s dense, 18th-century English, and incredibly detailed. But if you give it the time and patience it deserves, what you find is a groundbreaking, nuanced, and even surprisingly modern exploration of how economies work and more importantly, how people behave within them.
The core of Smith’s argument is deceptively simple: individual self-interest, when operating in a system of fair competition and minimal interference, can lead to collective benefit. It’s the classic “invisible hand” idea. But there’s so much more nuance than people give him credit for.
He doesn’t blindly glorify capitalism. He’s very aware of the dangers of monopolies, exploitative labor, and the unequal distribution of power in markets. He talks about the importance of public goods, education, infrastructure, and the moral dimensions of work. It’s clear that Smith cared not only about efficiency but also about ethics. And that surprised me in the best way.
What really stood out to me was how this book isn’t just about money or markets, it’s about human behavior. About habits, incentives, productivity, and the psychology behind how people trade, produce, and consume. You see glimpses of sociology, political philosophy, even communication theory in how he discusses the formation of social norms, national identity, and economic narratives.
Yes, it’s long. Yes, it’s technical in parts. But it’s also rich, layered, and honestly… kind of thrilling once you get into it. It’s a book that changed how I view economics, not just as numbers or policies, but as a reflection of human nature, power, and culture.
Would I recommend it to everyone? Not casually. But if you’re curious, intellectually hungry, and ready to engage with one of the most important minds in modern economic thought.. definitely go for it. Take it slow. Annotate. Pause. And trust that the payoff is worth it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 26, 2025
„Der Wohlstand der Nationen“ ist kein Lobgesang auf den Markt, sondern eine Untersuchung seiner Moral – geschrieben von einem Philosophen, der Ökonom wurde, ohne das Mitgefühl zu vergessen. Adam Smith schrieb kein Handbuch des Kapitalismus, sondern eine Anatomie der Arbeit, des Tauschens und des Vertrauens – und wurde trotzdem zum Heiligen der Händler erklärt. Wer glaubt, Smith habe den Kapitalismus erfunden, hat ihn nicht gelesen; er beschrieb nur, wie Menschen versuchen, ohne Tugend zu gedeihen. In diesem ökonomischen Epos denkt Smith die Welt als ein Gewebe von Arbeit, Abhängigkeit und Hoffnung, und die unsichtbare Hand erscheint nicht als göttliche Ordnung, sondern als Spiegel unserer Begierden – eine frühe, geniale Selbsterkenntnis der Moderne.
September 30, 2025
is a solid read if you want the basics of free market thinking. Adam Smith explains stuff like division of labor and the “invisible hand” in a way that still makes sense today. But because it was written in 1770s so it misses later ideas like price theory and marginal value theory, sticking instead to the labor theory of value, which is really outdated and could mislead readers considering a core premise of a functional and efficient free market is the value theory. Even with those outdated parts, it’s kind of amazing how much Smith got right. It’s worth picking up just to see where modern economics really started and to have a general sense of what a free market is.
November 1, 2025
I really liked the book, I believe that it does in fact have a good over-all analysis of capitalism from a capitalist, although the slightly, (though constant) racism reminds you that this book was written a long time ago, which is why it's probably better to read more modern, concise, and probably not racist book about capital, although this is foundational to modern day neoliberal economics (even though I don't really feel like it advocates for neoliberal policies, everyone loves to glaze capitalists until they release that they recognized the same issues that karl marx did)
July 28, 2025
Interesting! Much easier to read than other CC texts and I enjoyed the theory of it. We didn’t read the whole invisible hand bit though. He doesn’t like artists very much though… economics is a cold way of viewing life
December 5, 2025
Sterkur fræðilegur grundvöllur til að byggja samræðu á, þar sem margt stendur satt ennþá. Drullu leiðinlegar bækur þar sem hann tekur til að útskýra allt með dæmum, sem er hjálplegt til að skilja hans umhverfi og til að fylgja, samt bara allt of mikið.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 122 reviews