As far back as man has been on earth, he has been driven towards building a community among his peers. Whether that is a community of hunters and gatherers who share whatever the day has brought to them within their tribe, or a larger community which within its structure lie the inner dwellings of division of labor and societal classes. Adam Smith (18th Century), John Stuart Mill (19th Century), and Karl Marx (19th Century) are of the same cloth, but in modern terms their community is referenced as a government, and they each have their own distinct opinions on the 'drive' instilled within human nature that shape their personal economic theories. I will be dissecting the views of each of these economists, in regards to the role of government within their envisioned society. While showcasing the difference in views, I want to focus on the subtle similarities that these famous economists shared within their economic process and their beliefs regarding human nature. The first economist we will discuss is Adam Smith. Before we discuss Smith's views, we will provide a brief description of the setting in which Smith was able to create his assumptions, and formulate his theories. Smith studied Social Philosophy at the University of Glasgow and the University of Oxford, the latter of which he was not as fond of. The primary economic theory at the time (18th Century) was mercantilism, which focused on foreign trade and a positive balance of trade (Net Imports > Net Exports;Trade Surplus). Around 1760, Smith was in France, which was horribly in debt due to the ruinous aiding of Americans against the British, amongst other reasons. Smith envisioned the government playing a larger role, one which consisted of protection through mercha... ... middle of paper ... ...iety being tampered or an individual causing harm to others and deemed unfit. All of these economists looked out for the well being of mankind, even if their government-economic structures were polar opposites, they all had the intention of bettering the mankind. Some ideas translate better than others and in hindsight , a mixture of all these great economists ideas are what balances out a capitalist system. Works Cited Heilbroner, R. (1997). Teachings from the Worldly Philosophy. -: W.W. Norton & Company. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2000). Manifesto of the Communist Party . Germany: Zodiac. Mill, J. S. (2001). On Liberty. Kitchener: Batoche Books. (Original work published 1859) Smith, A. (2005). AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. Hazleton: A PENN STATE ELECTRONIC CLASSICS SERIES PUBLICATION. (Original work published 1776)
In the Humanistic Tradition the author, Gloria Fiero introduces Adam smith as a Scottish moral philosopher, pioneer of political economy, and a key figure in the Scottish Enlightenment. Smith also known as the Father of Political economy, is best known for one of his two classic works An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations. Fiero looks at Smith’s work because the division of labor is important. One thing Smith thinks is even more important for creating a wealthy nation, is to interact and have open trade with different countries. Fiero states,“It is necessary, though very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter,
Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, (London: 1776), 190-91, 235-37.
In Alexander Kern’s “Emerson and Economics,” Kern draws attention to the economical aspects found in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s texts. Specifically, Kern discusses the lack of attention that Emerson’s economical notions receive. Emerson is not associated with being an economist writer, but Kern draws attention to how “he so frequently touched the subject than an understanding of his economic ideas is a prerequisite to the evaluation of his entire thought on any relative or absolute scale” (Kern 678). Kern’s theory that readers must extract the economics out of Emerson in order to comprehend his texts is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of viewing Emerson as an economist, yet he views Emerson as a moral philosopher because of the author’s views towards society. Alexander Kern’s call to view Emerson as an economist is yet to be answered. Moreover, it is crucial to evaluate Emerson as an economist in order to analyze his texts differently. Consequently, using economics to evaluate Emerson’s “Self Reliance” in a new way will show it is meant to be a call for social reformation. More specifically, by considering the economic panic of 1837 and its effects on Emerson’s views towards society, a new way to interpret “Self Reliance” is achieved.
Diamond discusses the importance of ideology and the ways in which they “pave road” for society to appropriately organize upon. Diamond specifically outlines the ways in which changing an ideology can alter society in Chapter 14, From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy, as society evolves through the spread of an ideology. Both Diamond and Hunt agree about the importance of ideology in society, but their standpoints are critically different in their perspectives. Diamond focuses on other aspects just as well, such as immunity to germs or resource production, whereas Hunt specifically focuses on the ways in which changes in ideology impact the development of capitalism. Thus, both Hunt and Diamond have different thought’s on economic history, but converge in the ideal of signifying ideological
This person is notably less concerned with securing financial wealth (Smith, 1759: 62). Does this then mean that their lack of concern with material gains will work against the economy? It is my thesis that greed does not fuel the economy, but undermines the value system on which capitalism (according to Adam Smith) was built, and a good example of this today is child labor. I plan to argue that Smith’s case for pursuing self-interest only works in the context of a wealthy society. He understood that there was more to life than amassing wealth, but he did not consider the plight of those in abject poverty.
Smith's Influential work, The Wealth of Nations, was written based on the help with the country’s economy who bases it off his book. Smith’s book was mainly written on how inefficient mercantilism was...
The three philosophers that will be examined are Adam Ferguson, David Hume, and Adam Smith. By assessing their thoughts on the subject of wealth, conclusions can be developed for the questions presented. Each thinker has an answer to these questions, yet there may be some overlap within the thoughts of these men since they were peers writing during the same period. The first philosopher to be discussed is Adam Ferguson along with his work An Essay on the History of Civil Liberty. Ferguson provides his understanding of wealth and its effects in the section of his work titled “Of Population and Wealth.” He does not explicitly define wealth such as in the form of a dictionary entry, rather must be deduced. Ferguson’s central claim in this section is that there is a connection between a growing population and the growing wealth and prosperity of a nation.
This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by rewarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labor most effectively and most economically: while, by increasing the general mass of productions, it diffuses general benefit, and binds together, by one common tie of interest and intercourse, the universal society of nations throughout the civilized world.”(The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation pg.
Smith, Adam. "CHAPTER XI OF THE RENT OF LAND." An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. 161. Print.
Eleanor Marx has not been remembered as an economist. Her life, though more so her death, has captured the imaginations and curiosities of novelists and biographers and her existence has been cast into the role of the “tragic socialist.” Yet, as the daughter of Karl Marx, she was a prominent writer and activist for socialist reform. She edited Marx’s unpublished texts after his death and contributed several articles of her own on economic topics. Similarly, in her daily interactions, she worked for social reform that was fundamentally economic in nature and associated with a wide range of feminist and socialist activists. Many of these people themselves have been classified, or perhaps reclassified in recent years, as economists themselves. Yet Eleanor has by and large been overlooked by historians and economists. She has been relegated to the role of tragic heroine at best and a curiosity at worst. This paper will argue that both in her written legacy and in the way she conducted her personal life, Eleanor Marx was first and foremost an economist.
Marx, Karl. The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. New York: International Publishers, 1964. Print.
Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations argues for a system of political economy that separates economy – the creation and distribution of wealth – from governmental interference. In Smith’s view, the economy of a nation grows as a direct consequence of private business ventures in the interest of each individual owner. Regulation by the government hurts the economy, and the progress of society is derived from the flow of the market. Things should be left in their natural states, thus maintaining a “natural order” of society. The basis of Smith’s thesis is that this natural order is driven by Man’s self-interest.
Classical Economics is a theory that suggests by leaving the free market alone without human intervention; equilibrium will be obtained. This theory was the first school of thought for economists and one of the major theorists and founders of Classical Economics was Adam Smith. Smith stated, “By pursuing his own interest, he (man) frequently promotes that (good) of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I (Adam Smith) have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”(Patil) Classical Economic theory assumes three basic ideas: Flexible Prices, Shay’s Law, and Savings-Investment equality. Flexible prices in Classical theory suggests prices will rise and fall as needed but is not always true, due to, the interference of government agencies including unions and laws. Smith stated in the Wealth of the Nation (1776), “Civil government, so far it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.” (Patil) Shay’s Law implies supply creates its own demand and demand is not based on production or supply.
Smith's formulation transcends a purely descriptive account of the transformations that shook eighteenth-century Europe. A powerful normative theory about the emancipatory character of market systems lies at the heart of Wealth of Nations. These markets constitute "the system of natural liberty" because they shatter traditional hierarchies, exclusions, and privileges.2 Unlike mercantilism and other alternative mechanisms of economic coordination, markets are based on the spontaneous and free expression of individual preferences. Rather than change, even repress, human nature to accord with an abstract bundle of values, market economies accept the propensities of humankind and are attentive to their character. They recognize and value its inclinations; not only human reason but the full panoply of individual aspirations and needs.3 Thus, for Smith, markets give full expression to individual, economic liberty.
...llow the “invisible hand” to guide everyone in their economic endeavors, create the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and generate economic growth. Smith also delved into the dynamics of the labor market, wealth accumulation, and productivity growth. His work was later discovered to be precise, after the Great depression took place allowing the governments interference by reducing taxes and increasing governments spending.