Adam Smith is known as one of the fathers of economics. He is most known for his profound ideas and theories on capitalism presented in his book the Wealth of Nations. Around ten years prior to him finishing the Wealth of Nations he released the Theory of Moral Sentiments, less referred to in relation to political economics, but equally as important. Both books should be read together to have a deeper understanding of Smith’s economic theories and his understanding of humans as social beings. Although the books have a somewhat lengthy time separation and are sometimes referred to as younger Smith and later, more mature Smith; it is necessary to read both books. In the Wealth of Nations the ideal capitalist government and society relies on …show more content…
The impartial spectator acts a third party judging a person’s behavior. Although Smith’s two books were written years apart, they have multiple connections between the two. The assumptions and claims he makes about man in the Theory of Moral Sentiments seem to hold true in the Wealth of Nations. It almost appears that the Wealth of Nation’s is what a society of prudent men would be like from a political and societal stance. It seems that Smith carries over his understanding of self-interested benevolence from Theory of Moral Sentiments to the Wealth of Nations. Something unique about the Wealth of Nations is Smith’s discussion of a nation’s legal system. Smith uses the concept of a strong legal system to refute theories from other philosophers, such as Rousseau. Smith believes a legal system should hardly be used, however it should be strong and it should shame individuals who have done wrong. Not only should this shaming deter the individual from acting corruptly again, but it should also be a very public shaming to ensure other individuals learn from the mistake to make them afraid of doing something that would induce a similar punishment. Smith believes a strong legal system is an essential part of a healthy capitalist …show more content…
This topic is focused on the middle class, which he views as the most virtuous and therefore the most admirable. He finds it to be a huge flaw to admire the super wealthy because although it is good to have wealth, they often do not have virtue, which is morally important. Humans often feel sympathy for the super poor, however Smith advises on not admiring the poor even if they are virtuous, because you need virtue and wealth for happiness. Smith recommends inspiring to be like the middle class that has both virtue and wealth and therefore the most likely to be happy. However, there are exception to all of these cases they are just a recommendations on achieving wealth and virtue. Wealth and virtue seem to be very important to Smith as seen throughout both books. Theory of Moral Sentiments having more of a focus on virtue, and Wealth of Nations having more of a focus on wealth, particularly societal, national
Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, (London: 1776), 190-91, 235-37.
For a few people to amass great wealth in a society is the highest expression of civilization. This is the base argument of Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” (1889) however he also explains the importance of philanthropy from those in the upper class, arguing that the wealthy entrepreneurs of society have a responsibility to distribute their excess wealth in a manner that proves to benefit society as a whole while avoiding wasting it on frivolous expenditures. Although claiming that the income gap between social classes has played an important role in society, Carnegie believes that the incredibly uneven distribution of wealth can be mitigated by the upper and lower classes working together to gain a mutually beneficial outcome. With an extending argument, Carl Becker seeks to explain in his article “Ideal Democracy” (1941), what his idea of the ideal democracy is, which he defines as “of the people, by the people, for the people” (148). However arguing that in today’s society, it is defined more so as “of the people, by the politicians, for whatever pressure groups can get their interests taken care of.” (148).This paper will serve to analyze the relative strengths and weaknesses of each text’s argument and supporting material. In doing so we will touch on the rhetorical strategies and structure that each text employs, while connecting them together through comparison. Becker argues that democracy has changed over time, while Carnegie extends this argument by stating the change will be beneficial to the human race.
Wealth is an article by Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish American, showed his views on their social class during the Gilded Age, the late 19th century, discussing the “rich and poor.” Carnegie in fact was one of the wealthiest men because of his major success in the steel industry.
Smith is against mercantilism, which puts more government emphasis on exports than imports and typically puts high tariffs on imports. The goal of a nation, according to Smith, is to be wealthy, and that means to have plenty of affordable goods and services. To Smith, the best political order would be centered on the market. The goal would be to have a larger market so the citizens would be able to specialize more and increase production. It appears that Smith’s views on the type of political order are along the lines of what we consider capitalism today, and that Smith does not agree with the government involvement in citizen’s life. In this type of political order, the citizens profit from their product, and they also help others by hiring workers and paying rent on the property they are using. The success of the individual is determined by his or her wealth, and wealth is the amount of stuff an individual can buy with his or her money. To be a successful nation, all of the individuals have to be wealthy, and therefore the nation will be
Imagine a disaster. Rather, imagine August 6th, 1945 when the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima. Or October 17th, 1989, the 6.9 Richter earthquake that destroyed San Francisco, killing 60 plus civilians. Or April 20th, 1999, the deadliest school shootings in history, Columbine. September 11th, 2001 a terrorist attack on one of the world’s tallest buildings (the world trade center) in the heart of New York City. August 23rd, 2005 a category five hurricane that swept through the Gulf of Mexico, breaking the levies to New Orleans, Louisiana and destroying the city. Imagine the sounds of planes flying over your house as you sit on your couch and watch T.V., ignorant to the fact that that is the sound of disaster.
Carnegie ends his essay by saying that to follow his plan regarding wealth would someday solve the problem gap between the rich and poor, and bring “Peace on earth, among men Good-Will” (495). I plan to show my concerns and beliefs for and against his ideas.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his work Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, gives his opinion on the topic of progression and how it has historically developed man from his natural state into a player in today’s civilized societies, including the economic structure and inequality that is present. Though, Adam Smith, based on his findings which he delineates in his works, Wealth of Nations, Theory of Moral Sentiments, and Lectures on Jurisprudence, would take issue with Rousseau’s philosophy on several accounts. In the philosophical spectrum of Hobbes to Rousseau in the discussion of man in his natural state, Smith falls in the middle, as he tends to agree and disagree with both philosophers on various aspects of the debate. Following a close reading of the text, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Smith would be very critical of Rousseau and the ideas he expresses.
The basis of the United States capitalistic economy is the rationality of humans when it comes to bartering. Each person’s mindset is to get as much as they can for what they have through trade. Adam Smith, a Scottish sociologist, sparked the foundation of that economist thought. Smith theorized that with the division of labor, an economy can be perfected. However, an anthropologist named David Graeber disagrees with Smith. Graeber states that nowhere in the history of primitive economies has there been one based off of bartering. Essentially, Smith’s argument supports humans as homo economicus while Graeber’s argument supports the homo reciprocans term. Both theorists have an outstanding epistemology behind them, though Graeber has the benefit
He immigrated from Scotland and later opened up his own Steel business, which opened up a series of opportunities for him to prosper and become wealthy. Carnegie was aware of the different social classes, but was certain that it was not a threat to the people of the American society. He exclaims, “ …But good, has come to the race from the accumulation of wealth by those who have the ability and energy that produce it” (Jacobus 488). As a person who is biased on the wealthy community, he placed little regard for the issues that the “common man” had to endure. For instance, he claims, “ Of every thousand dollars spent in so-called charity to-day, it is probable that $950 is unwisely spent; so spent, indeed, as to produce the very evils which it proposes to mitigate or cure.”
"Adam Smith." Adam Smith. Library of Economics and Liberty, 2008. Web. 4 Feb. 2011. .
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.
Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations [electronic resource]. Dublin: printed for Messrs. Whitestone, Chamberlaine, W. Watson, Potts, S. Watson and 15 others in Dublin.
Smith believed that the unexpected result when people pursue economic gain is to promote public interest. Smith wrote document C, “The Wealth Of Nations”. In this Smith writes, “As every individual, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital.” Smith believes this would be a better economic system. People get wealthy making the whole country wealthy. He believed in self reliance.
Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-American steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest men of the nineteenth century, believes that social inequality results as an inexorable byproduct of progress. In his 1889 article entitled “Wealth,” Carnegie claims that it is “essential” for the advancement of the human race that social divisions between the rich and poor exist, which separate those “highest and best in literature and the arts” who embody the “refinements of civilization” from those who do not (105). According to Carnegie, this “great irregularity” is favored over the “universal squalor” that would ensue if class distinctions ceased to exist (105). Carnegie states that it is a “waste of time to criticize the inevitable,” believing that poverty is an inherent characteristic of society rather than the result of elitist oppression (105). Carnegie may conclude that the rich do not necessarily owe the poor anything, but he also believes that wealthy philanthropists such as he should donate their vast accumulations to charity while they are still alive. In Carnegie’s mind, contributions to supporting educational institutions and constructing landmarks serves to
Carnegie’s essay contains explanations of three common methods by which wealth is distributed and his own opinions on the effects of each. After reading the entire essay, readers can see his overall appeals to logos; having wealth does not make anyone rich, but using that wealth for the greater good does. He does not force his opinions onto the reader, but is effectively convincing of why his beliefs make sense. Andrew Carnegie’s simple explanations intertwined with small, but powerful appeals to ethos and pathos become incorporated into his overall appeal to logos in his definition of what it means for one to truly be rich.