Theory of Moral Sentimen: Adam Smith

Unfortunately, the vast majority of human trades do not require imagination - they do not even require intelligence. Why employ a doctor with 8+ years of schooling, if his job could be automated?

The problem with this premise is that innovation generally requires an affluent background. First off education is a must. The person who could cure cancer has probably been born many times over already - but most likely in the inner city somewhere, and will never be given the education for his/her intelligence and skills to bear fruition. Secondly, innovation requires leasure time. Bill Gates tinkered in his parents' garage on their dime - its unlikely he would have founded Microsoft if he was working 12 hours a day in a coal mine.

And despite all that - thousands of innovations due occur every day in America - but these innovations are not owned by the individual, but by the companies who employ them - meaning the inventor will never see a dime of the profits from his innovation. Worse still, these innovations are deliberately withheld from the public - our greatest victories against disease in the field of medicine occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries when the vast corporations of today did not exist. New vaccinations could be distributed for free.

Adam Smith, in his Theory of Moral Sentiment, stated that morality is a crucial part of making capitalism work. Unfortunately, we have more examples of capitalism without morality - such as American companies machine gunning or even bombing uncooperative workers. Or even today - a Texan fertilizer plant being blown to smithereens and taking half the town with it. The response? Texas is declared the most "business friendly" state and large corporations are flocking to it - be...

... middle of paper ...

...rams bombarding Americans, and audiences overseas - essentially copy/pasting a Marxist argument with new labels.

The fatal flaw of capitalism is the assumption that infinite growth can be achieved with finite resources - hence why capitalist systems have consistently crashed again and again throughout the years when their governments fail to enforce a sensible macro-economic policy. Countries that have successfully navigated through economic disasters are those that have allowed capitalism to work unfettered in micro-economics, but enforced a strong macro-economic policy.

Think of it this way - how well would the military work if there were no generals, if every unit acted as they pleased with no direction whatsoever? The consequences would likely be equally disastrous as micromanagement. The key is finding a happy balance between freedom and direction.