Scan barcode
anotherpath's review
4.0
Years ago I came across an article where Mark Cuban told a bunch of monetary skeptics that they need to go and read Smith and other economists before blabbing about the state of the world. I agreed. Having now read many modern economists AND the foundation of the science in Smith, I haven't changed my opinions much. I haven't read Marx at all, and I've steered clear of anything that I feel like I agree with on sentiment alone.
It doesn't matter what I think.
I will say that Smith is bastardized like all works.
Any reference to him IMMEDIATELY will use his "Invisible Hand" more times than he does, which is once in nine hundred pages. And if they bother to expound more than that, they'll reference his first chapter, where Smith shows that people engaged in a specific task will specialize the work to increase output. All innovation comes from the bottom, from the lay people.
His suggestion to personal selfishness has been so widely abused and distorted, that Smith would not recognize or approve of his modern contemporaries. Smith describes most of the ills of capitalism, and we see them compounded at their worst today and expounded by capitalists as if they are virtues. He would call out the last fifty years of economic policy among civilized nations for what it is, a grift of the managerial class on society at large, and the sign of decay and a need for a new enlightenment.
It doesn't matter what I think.
I will say that Smith is bastardized like all works.
Any reference to him IMMEDIATELY will use his "Invisible Hand" more times than he does, which is once in nine hundred pages. And if they bother to expound more than that, they'll reference his first chapter, where Smith shows that people engaged in a specific task will specialize the work to increase output. All innovation comes from the bottom, from the lay people.
His suggestion to personal selfishness has been so widely abused and distorted, that Smith would not recognize or approve of his modern contemporaries. Smith describes most of the ills of capitalism, and we see them compounded at their worst today and expounded by capitalists as if they are virtues. He would call out the last fifty years of economic policy among civilized nations for what it is, a grift of the managerial class on society at large, and the sign of decay and a need for a new enlightenment.
deeparcher's review
3.0
I'm glad I read this book once, and I think it's important for educated people to read, since it is the framework that most macroeconomics are based on, but I wouldn't read it again.
hirvox's review
5.0
Even though it's almost two and a half centuries old, Wealth of Nations is one of the most eminently reasonable and accessible books about economy that I've ever read. While the examples are unavoidably dated, the principles behind them are still relevant.
ecs_etera's review against another edition
3.0
When I was in my first class of my first semester of undergrad, my macroeconomics professor mentioned this book - followed by "it is completely unreadable, but foundational." He was right. It is a slog, definitely, but has some fun bits.
My way was made a lot easier when I learned that the English called all grains "corn," so Smith is almost never talking about what we call corn during the many, many, many pages he covered discussing the trade of corn. England has never struck me as producers or consumers of corn - or maize, as I suppose they distinguished corn back then.
Smith also mentioned that a man of 10,000 pounds a year would probably support, in England, a thousand families directly. This Jane Austen fan was blown away by that.
My way was made a lot easier when I learned that the English called all grains "corn," so Smith is almost never talking about what we call corn during the many, many, many pages he covered discussing the trade of corn. England has never struck me as producers or consumers of corn - or maize, as I suppose they distinguished corn back then.
Smith also mentioned that a man of 10,000 pounds a year would probably support, in England, a thousand families directly. This Jane Austen fan was blown away by that.
iamleeg's review
3.0
I'm glad I read it, and I'm glad it's over. Adam Smith's pins and his descriptions of banking, mercantile commerce and taxation helped me understand a lot about economics. His ideas are transparently out of date though. The idea that an individual choosing an occupation will make the best choice for themselves and also for their society can in no way be true.
vladcalin's review
3.0
It was not what I imagined. I expected it to be more abstract and have more insights into the economic concepts it presents, but they are very shallowly presented. The book focused too much on how the society was working back then, what social categories existed and their relationship. It was too focused on historical details for my taste (talking about various kind of taxes and transactions between the social categories) and I was hoping it would go more in depth with the economic aspects of that time.
But overall, it was a decent read, pretty informative if you are passionate about the historic evolution of the society and want to learn the most detailed aspects of it, but details as in an enumeration rather than an explanation.
But overall, it was a decent read, pretty informative if you are passionate about the historic evolution of the society and want to learn the most detailed aspects of it, but details as in an enumeration rather than an explanation.
zzt's review
Historic and valuable contribution to social economics, always on the reading list
mducks's review
Historic and valuable contribution to social economics, always on the reading list