The Invisible Hand

by Adam Smith

Adam Smith’s landmark treatise on the free market paved the way for modern capitalism, arguing that competition is the engine of a productive society, and that self-interest will eventually come to enrich the whole community, as if by an ‘invisible hand’. Throughout history, some books have changed the world. They have transformed the way we see ourselves – and each other. They have inspired debate, dissent, war and revolution. They have enlightened, outraged, provoked and comforted. They have enriched lives – and destroyed them. Now Penguin brings you the works of the great thinkers, pioneers, radicals and visionaries whose ideas shook civilization and helped make us who we are.

Genres: Economics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, History, Classics, Business

144 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1759

About the author

For 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

Reviews

[Julian Worker · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't normally read books on Economics but I thought I would read this one, since it's the book, or one of Adam Smith's books, that 'inspired' Thatcherism and the Free Marketeers. Yes, the Invisible Hand is about the Free Market and so paved the way for the modern capitalist system. Adam Smith argues that competition is the engine of a productive society and that self-interest will eventually benefit the whole community, as if by an 'Invisible Hand', hence the title.

Adam Smith also argues that the most important trade that takes place in every nation, is between the inhabitants of the town and the inhabitants of the country.

[Phil Toop · Rating 1 out of 5]

A very disappointing book, caused by the publisher (Penguin) extracting 127 pages out of over 1,000 pages of material in Adam Smith's 5 books of The Wealth of Nations. What's more, this edition gives no introduction or explanation of the fact that this book is merely a series of extracts from the source books. I will look forward to reading the full books of The Wealth of Nations.

[Connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was harder than I expected to get through this book, due to a combination of reasons. First and foremost was the language in which the book was written. Being more than two hundred years old, it was written in an antiquated style which I found a little too tedious.

Still, the content of the book was really interesting. I didn't realize that The Invisible Hand was an excerpt of The Wealth of Nations, so no I am obliged to read that as well. Reading Adam Smith makes me interested in taking macroeconomics as one of my electives.

[leontine humlan]

Ja, jag skummade en del

[Jono · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great to get some of the original thinking behind the Invisible Hand rather than the soundbyte. The book actually examines a lot of different fundamental notions of economics. Adam Smith's fundamental point is that it is rarely, if ever, in the interest of a country to provide restrictions to trade. An unconstrained free market is a better way to run things.

In the process he usefully examines the concept of wealth, value, productivity, the divison of labor, taxes and agriculture. I found myself pleasantly enjoying his examples, all of which date from 17th century England. It was refreshing to have such back-to-basics, straightforward thinking based on concrete examples around making pins, trading tobacco, creating woolens or silks and even that money is inherently more difficult to control because it's small size makes it so much easier to smuggle (than, say, the same value in potatoes).

Despite this useful examining of my fundamental economics knowledge (or lack of), Adam Smith's 17th century English does not make an easy read.

I found myself wondering what he would make of today's collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps and kind of wished he was still helping make the decisions.

[I'm Kian · Rating 4 out of 5]

نسخه فارسی کتاب رو خواندم
ترجمه مرضیه خسروی- نشر روزگار نو
خود ترجمه خیلی متوسط بود. برخی جملات اصلا مفهوم نبود. جاهایی بسیار زیاد وجود داشت که کلمات به هم چسبیده بودن و نشون از کج سلیقگی و بی مسئولیتی در قبال دادن اثر تمیز به مخاطب بود
بدتر از همه نگرانی من از تعداد صفحات هست . در این اثر تعداد صفحات از ب بسم الله تا پ پایان ، با نود صفحه کاغذ مواجهیم. حال آنکه در کتاب درج شده صد و دو صفحه. و در ویرایش انگلیسی میبینیم تعداد صفحات خیلی بیشتر هست.
حتی ناشر در صفحه اول کتاب نام کامل انگلیسی کتاب رو هم درست درج نکرده
باری بدون شک هیچکس رو توصیه نمیکنم به خواندن این کتاب و همه رو به ترجمه ی آقای کاتوزیان ارجاع میدم. امتیاز بالا هم هیچ ربطی به ترجمه فارسی نداره

[Alan Gallardo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sendo coñazo. Me ha quitado las ganas de leer La Riqueza de las naciones de un plumazo. Me inquieta no saber si lo he detestado porque no entiendo el momento económico en que se inscribe la obra, porque soy parcial y sesgado o si Adam Smith y sus defensores hoy pecan de cándidos o embusteros. En cualquier caso, necesito leer algo que me purgue de este gólgota.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 3 out of 5]

The most interesting aspects of this book is the question of authorship. Without a question, all of the writing in this book is done by Adam Smith, but this book only contains about ten percent or so of the material that is in the Wealth of Nations. The Invisible Hand, as important a concept as it is for many contemporary readers, is not something that was all that important within the Wealth of Nations, and this book drastically cuts most of the core material by which Smith demonstrates his point that nations are better off by specializing and using the market, or the way that rents are such an important aspect of the wealth of nations and the people within those nations, through a discussion of the price of food. This is a book where substantial credit, or blame, depending on how one looks at it, depends on the editor of the work. And yet the editing of this work is entirely anonymous. It is entirely unclear which of the many nameless editors at Penguin lopped and cropped 90% of Adam Smith's work to make this book that is so short and so striking that some readers thought of it as a "new" or at least unknown book by the famous economist. That is, alas, not the case.

This book is just over 100 pages and it is divided into several sections. The first two chapters come from the opening of the Wealth of Nations and discuss the division of labor (1) and the principle of this concept and how it is to be justified and understood (2). After that the material discussed comes from the latter sections of the Wealth of Nations, which are more eloquent, where the author discusses the principle of the commercial system (3) and makes comments about exchange and its nature. After this comes a discussion of the restraints on the importations of goods (4), where the author discusses how it is that those whose interests demand protection will often receive protection from governments, which has not always been the case but has frequently been the case. After this comes the author's discussion of the unreasonableness of restraints (5), which points out that the world is not based on what is reasonable. This then leads to a closing chapter on agricultural systems (6), which concludes this short selection.

What does this book offer to the reader? For many readers who find Smith's interest in the price of corn and in the creation of widgets, this book will qualify as a "good parts" version of the much longer Wealth of Nations. But for those readers who want to know what it is that Adam Smith thought and how he reasoned to his conclusions, this book is somewhat unsatisfying. When you excise out the structure and the ligaments of an author's argument, you do violence to their insights, because for a good writer, striking insights spring from sound reasoning and analysis as well as the evidence that is used to provide the material of reflection. But this book is not written for completists. It is written for people who may have heard what the fuss is about with Adam Smith but who do not have the patience to read hundreds of pages of his material. At its best, this book can help introduce the reader to some of Smith's thinking and hopefully with the encouragement to read the rest of what is not included, but a great many readers will find this book far more appealing than Smith's actual work, and that is a great shame.

[Tenay · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm failing economy this semester thx Adam🫡

[Carmenchu Izquierdo Ripolles · Rating 3 out of 5]

I guess now I get how everything is done in economics. But if you get a wider view, this narrow philosophy is definably arguable. My inner thoughts where telling me most of the time how this does not align with a real way of living. I'm on my way to reading Karl Marx now xd.

[Evoli · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the biggest fan of Adam Smith's theories, however, he does manage to convey his idea in a convincing/logical manner.

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this a tricky read, partially due to the somewhat obscurist means of expression and partially because I was on high alert for bullshit from the patron saint of the free market. I certainly do not have a professional's understanding of the market, but I hate that slave labour can be used to make my clothes under the aegis of said free market and there's almost fuck-all I, the individual, can do about it. And Adam Smith invented this concept, so here we are.

Fundamentally, though, he is talking about a FREE market, which is not what capitalism and the current economic situation actually is. He's big on the local production, mainly through agriculture, and disdainful of 'gold and silver' as the surrogate marker of productivity. His attitude is, so what if all the 'currency' of a country flows out of it, if the people are prosperous and making stuff and sending money out to buy shit that will help with those things? Which is totally something I can get behind.

But though the poor country, notwithstanding the inferiority of its cultivation, can, in some measure, rival the rich in the cheapness and goodness of its corn, it can pretend to no such competition in its manufactures

AKA, everyone can grow crops in even slightly arable land, but not everyone can make a smartphone (extrapolating).

One of the greatest improvements that has been made upon this machine, since it was first invented, was in this manner the discovery of a boy who wanted to save his own labour.

As everyone who has ever worked with any kind of machine knows!

He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them.

Okay fair.

The inland or home trade, the most important of all, the trade in which an equal capital affords the greatest revenue, and creates the greatest employment to the people of the country, was considered as subsidiary only to foreign trade. It neither brought money into the country, it was said, nor carried any out of it.

As I said, his point is that's dumb.

By preferring the support of the domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need to be employed in dissuading them.


Okay FINE, there's a reasonable point here. But he's making HUGE jumps to conclusions. For example, HE'S never known anyone who went into business for the public good. RECALL BIAS, SIR? ANCHORING BIAS? Just because I, Adam Smith, living in 1700s Scotland, have not known anyone who went into business to help fellow humans, that means they don't exist? And never will exist? That's unimaginative at best. And even if it's 100% true in every circumstance, it's not a reason to just accept it. Smith positions himself as reporting facts about the world when in truth he's reporting a somewhat fallacious construct about the world. It's gone on to influence many, many important people, with detrimental effects; if he'd been clearer about this being a philosophical version of reality, which people/merchants have an obligation to change, how different would it have all gone down?

I mean, where's his data? How many businesspeople did he interview to decide none of them did it for a public good, and how was that in turn biased by his asking them directly versus observing their mission statements? Does it matter what the intention was if the outcome is betterment of humanity? He says no, but debates have raged from the origins of philosophy about this very problem, and he's presenting it as solved because that's convenient for his argument. That's neither good science nor good philosophy - perhaps, though, it is good economics.

But if foreigners, either by prohibitions or high duties, are hindered from coming to sell, they cannot always afford to come to buy; because coming without a cargo, they must lose the freight of their own country to Great Britain. By diminishing the number of sellers, therefore, we necessarily diminish that of buyers, and are thus likely not only to buy foreign goods dearer, but to sell our own cheaper, than if there was a more perfect freedom of trade.

Like I said, I'm not an economics expert, but I don't think Smith would say that, for example, trade sanctions invoked because the USA doesn't like a country (hi Iran!) is in keeping with what he defines as 'free trade/a free market'. Following that:

Were those high duties and prohibitions taken away all at once, cheaper foreign goods of the same kind might be poured so fast into the home market as to deprive all at once many thousands of our people of their ordinary employment and means of subsistence. The disorder which this would occasion might no doubt be very considerable. it would in all probability, however, be much less than is commonly imagined, for the two following reasons

Those reasons are:
1. If stuff is as cheap at home as abroad people will keep buying it unless they're snobs for higher quality expensive shit
2. People can find other work, like the army and navy who were demobbed after whatever war happened before this book

... yah, just a tad simplistic, as evidenced in more recent history with the deindustrialisation of the north of England and rustbelt America. SOME PEOPLE, ie the ones with higher education and transferrable skills (managers, IT, HR etc) are able to mobilise into new jobs. The people actually putting shit together on the factory floor or going down the mines, not so much. It shakes out over the long view of history, I guess - like no one cries anymore about the hundreds of thousands of people who used hand-looms or were involved in horse-powered transport and were put out by mechanisation and cars. Will anyone care about the 7 million drivers made redundant by self-driving cars in two hundred years? Probably not, but again, Smith doesn't make clear where he's suggesting we stand for a view on this: right now, when all those people are starving to death, or in two hundred years, when we'll probably all be dead post-robot apocalypse?

To expect, indeed, that freedom of trade should ever be entirely restored in Great Britain is as absurd as to expect that an Oceana or Utopia should ever be established in it. Not only the prejudices of the public, but what is much more unconquerable, the private interests of many individuals, irresistibly oppose it.

This is the key point people forget when they invoke free markets and Smith as progenitor of same - he didn't think they'd work because people are shit. And he was right.

By advantage or gain, I understand not the increase of the quantity of gold or silver, but that of the exchangeable value of the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, or the increase of the annual revenue of its inhabitants.

Hi America land of wage stagnation for fifty years you hear that?

Conclusion: Smith is not inviolable. I mean he also says things like this, comparing England and Holland:

As the interest of nations so differently circumstanced is very different, so is likewise the common character of the people: in those of the former kind (England), liberality, frankness, and good fellowship naturally make a part of that common character; in the latter (Holland), narrowness, meanness, and a selfish disposition, averse to all social pleasure and enjoyment.

OHO ADAM UR BIASES R SHOWING AGAIN

[Eduardo Casado · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recojo los mejores pasajes:
"No es de la Benevolencia del carnicero, el cervecero o el panadero de donde cabe esperar nuestro almuerzo, sino de la atención a su propio interés."

"Al buscar su propio interés, ese individuo fomenta con frecuencia y más eficientemente el de esa sociedad que cuando realmente persigue ese fomento"

"Cualquier padre de familia prudente tiene como máxima no intentar hacer nunca en casa lo que le costará más fabricarse que comprar."

"La industria del país sólo podrá aumentar en proporción al acrecentamiento de su capital, y éste sólo lo hará en proporción a lo que gradualmente pueda irse ahorrando de los ingresos".

"En verdad, un hombre rico que sea fabricante de manufacturas, será un vecino peligroso para todos los que tengan esa misma ocupación. Sin embargo, los demás vecinos, desde luego más numerosos, se beneficiaran del buen mercado que los gastos de ese hombre les proporcionen."

[Steve Mitchell · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit of a struggle, because economics always affects me the same way as mogadon, but this is a good treatise on the subject (if you can stay awake).

[Anthony Weston · Rating 4 out of 5]

An enjoyable and insightful little book.

[jazthedigital · Rating 3 out of 5]

On Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”

Review by jazthedigital
Read 11.07-12.07.2022
On Kindle Paperwhite 4


A libertarian, free market classic in economic literature of late 18th century. But is it a work advocating for what the libertarian (mostly Americans) use it as a reference ?
Surprisingly reading it, I thought that the matter is complicated and many aspects of Smith’s goals as one of first European economists are far removed from the talking-points of supposed “fans” of his.

A titular metaphor of “invisible hand”(of the market) is one of the big ones that influenced American economic psyche.
Before Smith there was no defined field of economics. This he is viewed as one of the fathers of modern economics.
Neoclassical economists and Adam Smith radically differ on the notion of invisible hand.

Smith by an account of Noam Chomsky, as 18th century theorists while writing his economical theories, was greatly concerned with British industry, its future and stability of local markets. He was afraid that people will invest more abroad and then import massively, instead of strength ING their own national economy.
He argued that a “home bias” will partially resolve bigger economical problems with this let’s say more contemporarily “global exchange” and thus as if guided by an invisible hand England will be stopped from potential decline.

Smith wasn’t for free import or radical free capital movement. That’s a myth shaped around usage of his ideas by many neoliberal politicians that used his theories for different goals and concerns. Of course such people, like Thatcher, Ronald Reagan didn’t specify where they viewed differ from Smiths. “Invisible Hand” essentially grew in post-war 20th & 21st century as an economic theoretic term with wide range of interpretations and original function of it was left partially in a shadow.
Now it’s used as shortcut justification for scoffing concerns about big corporations hegemony on markets or critique of neoliberal individualistic way of entrepreneurship.
Or as some more critical would put a culture of greed & perversive individualism in a centre of one’s economic shenanigans.
Which is very ironic cause Smith bashed form of markets in neoliberal fashion. Huh. Many American & British politicians didn’t get the memo then I guess.


Smith on first pages of his book proposes specialisation of workers worldwide in their efforts of choosing their routine & development. It’s fair of him to say that a man which has a freedom to pursue job of his choosing, of his passion, will show greater confidence and productivity in process.
Sure that’s common sense.

But Smith himself also points out to the fact that in different places, continents there are different conditions for example of making and need for silk. In England there are different conditions of manufacturing silk, that has to have certain qualities for example due to rainy climate, than in France or Poland. (Smith’s examples not mine)

He talks of cooperation, the strength of mutual efforts of workers on different stages of producing a coat for example.
“I say, all these things and consider what a variety of labour is employed about each of them, we shall be sensible that, without the assistance and co-operation of many thousands, the very meanest person in civilised country could not be provided, even according to what we very falsely imagine the easy and simple manner in which he is commonly accommodated.” (Page 11)
But to say of him that “an accommodation of a European prince does not always so much exceed that of an industrious and furgal peasant(...)” Yeah... cause they don’t have different
Also end note from African king to “naked savages”. Ehh...

Later he discusses different instruments of commerce & measures of value, that it differs culturally. He also comments on John Locke’s remarks about movable goods and purposes of accumulating silver and gold. Too bad Smith doesn’t extend on the notion of smaller peasant groups or little societies both European & non-European where at his time in different circumstances exchanging goods such as food, raw materials,tools was more convenient than golden or silver coins. But it’s pretty clear that he is interested the most in theories in regard to vast, far-reaching dynamics in trade etc.
This doesn’t excuse him, but I get it.

Also he jumps from more general country’s economic workings to those of a merchant in his time, that theoretically would’ve work in three places, to make a fluid trades.
It’s clear he as an author was privileged to not concern himself that much or identify with people in manufactured, near hard machinery, people struggling for a house. So there are moments in a second half, that seem like unfortunately short-sighted optimism towards the good ways of entrepreneurship, without regard to the lower classes that are integral (and most exploited) part of the system Smith comments on and proposes alternatives to.
It stifles his fluid and grand attitude in writing.


I’m also rather sceptical of the notion that a quantity of commodities regulates itself to the natural demand of those paying.
It’s not enough fleshed-out for me, more detailed structural and class examination would make it less weird and over-confident of a statement about 18th century view of economy that Smith proposes here.
But he actually clarified that he means mostly silver and gold as more “universal” means of trade rather than raw materials or grain. He knew how tricky import is. And how today shortened and infantilised arguments of his rhetoric from this book like: “this will regulate itself. It’s free market, duh!” sentiment, seen so often by neoliberal economists, self-satisfied entrepreneurs is a fever dream. Even Smith knew there was need for regulations and that there were limits to his statement about self-regulating values in markets.

It’s also funny how in 4th chapter titled “Restraint on the importations on goods”, page 62 he wrote at the end:
“How far it may be to impose taxes upon the importation of foreign goods, in order not to prevent their importation but to raise a revenue for government, I shall consider hereafter when I come to treat of taxes. Taxes imposed with a view to prevent, or even to diminish importation, are evidently as destructive of the revenue of the customs as of the freedom of trade.”

I think there could be better way of ending this chapter than leaving it on a cliffhanger with understatement saying: “I’ll comeback to it, even though now my stance isn’t even clear.”
That’s was kinda sloppy of Smith. It’s also a bit weird, considering that Smith also says earlier that he sees dangers in too rampant import practices, with inconveniences to the nation that may be too reliable on import goods. So... he’s a bit confusing in conclusion of 4th chapter.



That’s pretty interesting, read. I didn’t expect to be entertained by it, and that it would be “counter-argument” in so many places with problematic neoliberal capitalism. Also straightening of Smith’s not so simple or infantile ideas as many renditions of him make it out to be. And I mean liberal & free market advocates renditions. Distortions, more so.

Also it’s cool that Adam Smith, so championed by libs essentially wrote “landlords are exploiters” in the Chapter 6: “Agricultural systems”. Cool. I agree with him. Also he thoroughly lays down laws & its function in relation to land ownership in his times, that’s intriguing on its own.
Very intuitively processed.


Maybe more of Smith’s general ideas used or translated in common talk by politicians, makes for misunderstanding and under representation of his own concerns with free market ideas? He is worshipped and championed. But maybe not as much thoroughly read. I think.

Fun thing Smith was opposed to a system which now we’d call neoliberalism and used his term of invisible hand of the market in “Wealth of nations” to opposed it. Bet you didn’t knew that one huh? He has both potential positives and crucial negatives in division of labour.
Again in “Wealth of nations” around pages 400. He is advocating for protection of human rights of workers. Says that on civilised, well aware society government has to intervene to prevent bad points of division of labour. Like dehumanisation of workers.


Smith presents more nuanced points for markets than majority of today’s libertarians or conservatives that like to cite him.
Cross border business interactions where one thing is produced in one place, the assembled in the other state or country and send off to completely different country to be again modified and then sold for knows where isn’t a way of trade that Smith was enthusiastic for. He was sceptical and more negative to practices like that. Practices that are nothing uncommon in today’s economic global landscape. Weather we like it or not.


Language of the book although I know some people that warned me if it’s old-ways of English, was pretty intuitive and not dry. Smith has some flow to his argument and presentation. Sometimes he repeats a thing in different words, I guess for endurance that he’ll be understood by the potential reader. But it’s not a big deal. When he lays arguments about need for different practices of trade it doesn’t feel short-sighted in text and is usually followed by an explanations from the real world practices & differences in trade between world nations. That deserves some credit I guess. It didn’t felt that archaic in presentation. A good surprise.

It wasn’t a long read. At some point it accelerates when you, sink in Smith’s writing style. Structure isn’t one of the most well-thought or transparent, but not bad or messy either.


Although I’m not an advocate for free market and have many problems with current mainstream concept of capitalism, this read was very interesting to me.
It gave me a context on development of economic theory (the classical European liberal kind that is) and I’m glad I got to absorb some part of history of classical liberal thought. Thought that nowadays gets misinterpreted and mistranslated so often in political discussions.
I appreciate even though I’m more left-leaning.

Smith had some precautionary attitude and apparently good educational background, that are some of the factors why this work holds pretty well all the centuries later as read text.


#classicalliberalismbook

3 out of 5 stars.

[Dórian Bachmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

O autor, Adam Smith, foi um pioneiro da economia política e um dos principais ideólogos do liberalismo. Conhecido como o pai da economia, era, antes de tudo, filósofo e humanista.

Ele resume a essência de seu pensamento liberal sobre a influência do indivíduo na economia com as seguintes palavras:
“Ao perseguir seu próprio interesse, esse indivíduo frequentemente promove o interesse da sociedade de forma mais efetiva do que se realmente tivesse a intenção de promovê-lo.”

Por meio de comparações interessantes, Smith reconhece que as pessoas, ao nascerem, são semelhantes em sua capacidade. Mas, por força dos diferentes caminhos, acabam criando habilidades que são úteis uns para os outros.

Alguns trechos que sintetizam suas ideias.
“A divisão do trabalho, quando pode ser implementada, acarreta, em cada ofício, um incremento proporcional da capacidade produtiva. Aquilo que constitui o trabalho de um único homem numa sociedade em estágio rudimentar é normalmente dividido entre vários numa mais desenvolvida.”
“É a grande multiplicação nas produções de todos os diferentes ofícios, em consequência da divisão do trabalho, que propicia, numa sociedade bem governada, que a riqueza universal se estenda até as classes mais baixas do povo.”
“Se contemplarmos apenas as ações do agricultor no tempo da semeadura”, diz, “quando ele desperdiça tanto cereal bom dentro do solo, nós o teríamos mais como um louco do que como um agricultor. Mas quando avaliarmos seu trabalho na colheita, que é a finalidade de seus esforços, vamos ver o valor e o grande incremento que suas ações propiciam.”
“Ao preferir dar suporte à indústria doméstica e não à estrangeira, ele tem em vista apenas sua própria segurança; e ao direcionar essa indústria de tal maneira que seu produto possa ser do maior valor possível, ele tenciona apenas seu próprio ganho, e nisso é, como em muitos outros casos, conduzido por uma mão invisível para produzir um desfecho que não faz parte de sua intenção”.
“Em cada país, sempre é e deve ser do interesse da maioria do povo comprar o que quer que deseje daqueles que o vendem mais barato. Essa proposição é tão evidente que parece ridículo fazer qualquer esforço para prová-la; nem poderia jamais ter sido questionada, não tivesse a sofística interesseira de comerciantes e manufatores confundido o bom senso da humanidade.”

Em resumo, o livro é uma ótima lição de economia, com uma visão interessante e bem sustentada com ótimos exemplos da história. Deveria ser leitura obrigatória para todos os alunos de economia e jornalistas que cobrem o tema.

Nota:
O livro reproduz os capítulos fundamentais da obra maior de Adam Smith (An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, mais conhecido como A Riqueza das Nações).

Considerações
Antes da leitura, é útil saber que “Em 1751, Smith foi nomeado professor de Lógica na Universidade de Glasgow, passando, no ano seguinte, a dar a cadeira de Filosofia Moral. Nas suas aulas, cobria os campos da ética, retórica, jurisprudência e política econômica ou ainda "política e rendimento". (Informações da Wikipédia)

Também é importante notar que a realidade do comércio internacional e da relação de beligerância entre países na época (1776) em que o livro foi escrito, e dá o contexto, embora diferente da atual, não desqualifica a lógica do autor em suas observações sobre o funcionamento da economia.

Outro aspecto a observar é que a moeda de referência entre países era a prata ou a moeda-ouro. O dólar ainda não havia dominado o mercado internacional.

[Daniel Clemence · Rating 3 out of 5]

Adam Smith gives some reasonable explanations and analysis into the economy. The main argument in this essay is the benefits of free trade, how tariffs on the economy are negative and how rare metals impact an economy.

Much of his analysis is rather dated; for example the importance of gold and silver in the wealth of a country. Back when countries had gold backed currencies, silver and gold were reasonably important in the need to produce currency. However, the book seems to overstate the importance as too much silver and gold brings inflation as demonstrated by the Spanish empire in the 16th century that mined so much silver in South America that it collapsed their currency or Mansa Musa in the 14th century giving away so much gold in Egypt that the inflation lasted 10 years. A country that produces lots of gold now wouldn't automatically be wealthy now and so this idea seems dated. Although some economic schools such as the Austrian School still back gold standard currency, most would not.

Other arguments including the benefits of trade and specialisation are relatively sound but ignore the important difference between a wealthy country specialising in complex components such as South Korea in electronics and a poor country specialising in textiles such as Bangladesh. As a result, it seems to think that all trade is essentially fair, which it isn't. A country that can specialise in manufacturing expensive products will always be wealthier than one that doesn't.

[Lucifer Morningstar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Κλασσικό βιβλίο της σύγχρονης οικονομικής σκέψης. Πρόκειται για συγκεκριμένες ιδέες του κανονικού βιβλίου (κάποια κεφάλαια) που εξετάζουν την ιδέα της αυτορρύθμισης (της ζήτησης και προσφοράς) στην οικονομία στη βάση της ιδιοτέλειας.

Επιπλέον εξετάζεται η δομική αλλαγή στην οικονομική σκέψη από τον μερκαντιλισμό (προστατευτισμό) στο διεθνές εμπόριο. Ήτοι από τη συσσώρευση πολύτιμων μετάλλων στα εθνικά θησαυροφυλάκια στη δημιουργία όρων εμπορίου.

Η οικονομία δεν πρέπει να βασίζεται στο νόμισμα των πολύτιμων μετάλλων αλλά στη γη και την αφθονία που αυτή μπορεί να αποφέρει αν ισχύει η διάθεση των ανθρώπων για αντιπραγματισμό και ανταλλαγή προϊόντων και υπηρεσιών. Αυτή είναι μια μοναδικότητα που συναντάται στη φύση μόνο στον άνθρωπο.

Κανείς δεν ζει από την φιλανθρωπία του πλησίου του! Δεν πρέπει να στηρίζεσαι στην αγάπη του αλλά στο συμφέρον του και στην κάρπωση της ιδιοτέλειάς του αν προβεί σε κάποια εμπορική συναλλαγή μαζί σου!

[aaron trowbridge · Rating 3 out of 5]

Will economic agents, acting in their own interest and left to their own designs, necessarily produce conditions where all members of a society are benefitted? In other words, does a rising tide raise all boats? Smith defends the affirmative. Free markets, free trade, mutual benefit! To consider this in context, it is worthwhile, I think, to consider the case of the opium trade, which Britain at the time was trying to force on the Chinese under the guise of "free trade". This diabolic episode in history was contemporary with the publishing of The Wealth of Nations (1776). Smith's approach here is flawed, in my opinion, in that it doesn't account for the potential greed of capital as an emergent force above that of the individual, leading to actions that are individually unjustifiable but are necessary in the interest of the shareholders. Let's just say that I remain unconvinced of the efficaciousness of laissez-faire economic policy.

[Eduardo · Rating 1 out of 5]

La Mano Invisible de Adam Smith promueve la idea de que la búsqueda del interés propio en el libre mercado, sin intervención del Estado, llevará a un beneficio general para la sociedad. Smith argumenta que, a través de la competencia, los individuos maximizan su propio bienestar, lo que supuestamente resulta en la prosperidad colectiva. Sin embargo, esta teoría ignora la deshumanización que puede causar el sistema capitalista, donde el beneficio individual se antepone al bienestar común. La falta de control estatal sobre los recursos y la economía fomenta la desigualdad y la dependencia de naciones extranjeras. Esta visión de la economía, impulsada por la "mano invisible", no responde a las necesidades de una nación fuerte y autosuficiente que debe preservar su identidad y controlar sus propios medios de producción.

[Nihal Vrana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well, it is always good to go to the roots of concepts that has taken a firm root of our understanding of the word instead of their diluted, distorted versions (like reading the Origin of Species or Das Kapital). I would like to thank Penguin for cherry-picking the most important part of Smith's work and presenting it in a digestible way as from this 150 or so pages I'm convinced that I would be unable to read and understand fully his works. That said, the level of insight of this work is uncanny and makes you sad that after more than 200 years we are still struggling in the muddiness of our lack of comprehension of this monster we humans have created, the economy. I'm not sure if I understood everything that is written, but it had my mind chugging; so it was a good read.

[Jade · Rating 2 out of 5]

I figured that I’ll read this instead of Wealth of Nations of which supposedly 7/8 is on corn prices. Maybe the choice of content was bad, or maybe it actually is a drag. I understand that Adam Smith is the (grand)father of economics, so I should not complain that it reads like a long whiny tale of an old bore. Well, to me it’s simply not worth reading. If you have any vague understanding of economics, you know what ‘the invisible hand’ is all about. And nowadays, modern economics has its own opinion of Smith’s rational humans. But also, I could be wrong, and maybe in spite of it all, Wealth of Nations would be a much better choice.

Still giving this 2 stars, because I do love Smith and appreciate his works and ideas.

[Kingdom Smallfig]

Not sure why anybody would read this, other than it looks cute among those "Great Ideas" books (which is why I picked it up I guess). It's 130 pages from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which is like 1000 pages long. If you're a scholar you probably want to read that. If not, you probably will not benefit much from these pages presented here unlinked to the rest of the work. This was written in a different era - the language is dense and hard to follow, the theories are outdated and presented without the backing of evidence. I was definitely not convinced btw. The economy should serve the people, not the other way round.

[Débora Morais · Rating 5 out of 5]

Leitura curta e de caráter histórico que é interessante para entender um pouco do pensamento de Adam Smith, pioneiro no liberalismo. O texto pode ser denso e enfadonho em alguns momentos por tratar da economia inglesa do seu tempo e usar isso pra elucidar seus pensamentos, mas ainda assim é uma leitura interessante.
Aqui ele defende a autorregulacao do mercado, poucas regulações de importações e câmbio.
"Cada homem, enquanto não infringir as leis da justiça, é deixado perfeitamente livre para perseguir seu próprio interesse a seu próprio modo, e a trazer tanto seu trabalho quanto seu capital para concorrer com os de qualquer outra pessoa ou categoria de pessoas."

[Alan · Rating 4 out of 5]

While a lot of Smith's writings are vague and (particularly in the second half) contradictory, there is no doubt that his central claim on the importance of free trade is spot on. Considered a founding document of the capitalist economic way, Smith's Wealth of Nations (the complete text from which this book is taken from) outlines the importance of a free market through an array of straight forward examples. I strongly recommend this book to anyone willing to read Marx or Engels, as to avoid Smith and solely read -them- is to miss half of the story of economic history.

[Ant · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a small but dense book which very nicely states Smith's understanding of free trade in the 1700's. Whether the author is correct or not wasn't the point of the book to me reading it some 300 years later. The point, for me, was as a view on a complex subject from a specific period of time.
The fact that the book is still in print is an indicator of its thought provoking nature. I read it in that spirit rather than as description or philosophy relevant to today and as such enjoyed it greatly.

[Ramon de la Cruz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Breve libro que nos da pinceladas sobre la división del trabajo y sus ventajas además de tratar sobre las consecuencias negativas de coartar para su libre y dinámico desarrollo.

De manera directamente proporcional, el condicionar un area del comercio, perjudicaría otra área ( menguando su libre fluir). Al final, deberíamos permitir el libre desarrollo bajo reglas equilibradas y justas para todos los actores.

[Luis · Rating 4 out of 5]

excelente libro, una joya vigente , fascinante como expone problemas y sofismas que aun nos atañen, libro liberal, sencillo, y obligatorio si deseeas conocer la importancia de que los comerciantes trabajen en base a un interes propio, al momento de explicar lo que él denomina elocuentemente como "la mano invisible"

[Shervin]

"All systems of preferences and restraints therefore taken away, the system of liberty establishes itself in a natural accord. So a man, so long as it does not violate laws of justice, is free to pursue his interests and bring his capital and industry into competition with other man or order of man."