Thursday, April 29, 2010

On the Wealth Of Nations


I have embarked on the most extraordinary journey of reading Smith's tome, The Wealth of Nations. So far what we have is him singing the praises of the specialisation of labour. Now, it is well known (and affirmed by the back cover of the book itself, of course) that Smith is a champion of free trade. At present then I am reading the chapter, the first in the book, about the specialisation of labour and how this promotes the interests of free enterprise. Of course, so far all I have heard is why specialisation is good for production (that is, increasing it) and how it is also, possibly, the single most powerful reason for industrialisation. This being the case because it is only when people have to perform one small task (as only one tiny part of a massive sequence of tasks necessary for the production of maybe only one simple item or product), in a repetitive sort of manner, that they will start thinking of how they can use various technological principles to aid their tasks. Smith, it seems, is also an astute psychologist. I mean this without any sarcasm. I think he is right about specialisation and the resulting inevitability of industry. Whether this be regarded a 'good' thing is, of course, going to be a function of who is analysing. Ecologists may have something different to say to industrialists about 'machinery' and maybe even this will be different to what an economist will say. But since I, however, am only interested in economists for now, I read on.

The one question with which I read is this:

I know that Adam Smith is a proponent of free trade. I know too that he lamented the vices of monopoly, maybe making this the single most counter productive factor for the advancement of free trade. Correct me if I am wrong.

My question: How free is free trade if it is going to place prohibitions on the possibility of monopolies existing? In other words, can something be free while it is constrained? Or maybe Smith will make a case for certain constraints being a necessary condition for freedom.


I read on, dear reader. Please join me occasionally if you would like to see how things fare for Smith and I.

No comments: