OK so chapter 4 of Book 3 of #WealthOfNations is a lot of *chef's kiss* and a little "...wat." Let's dive in. (III.iv.) #SmithTweets
Towns getting rich helped the country get rich in three ways:
1) They provide a market for the country. 2) They provided entrepreneurial people with the money to buy and improve land. 3) They largely ended domination and war.
3) is another wildly underappreciated argument from Smith: The commercial society that towns fostered improved governing institutions to reduce violence and increase security so that development can even happen.
Here's the basis for that claim: Without developed markets, landowners have nowhere to spend their riches. So they spend them on feeding, clothing, and housing "retainers and dependents", who are thus wholly dependent on their lords. (III.iv.5–8) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Wholly dependent people are...wholly dependent. That means they have to do things like go to war when they're told, even if it's for silly slights or minor disputes. (III.iv.5–8) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Because every lord who maintains hundreds of people effectively commands a small army, the king has WAY less authority. He can't command the lords or protect their subjects from them. For governance?
It's a very Smith thing to get annoyed that people think this is where feudal law comes from. Feudal law was instituted to try to bring all of the law under the jurisdiction of the king instead. (III.iv.8–9) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
The point of feudal law was to weaken the lords and strengthen the king, but it couldn't fix the root cause of dysfunctional governance by the lords because it stemmed from the economic system, not the legal one. (III.iv.9) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
That's bad.
Things look bad.
But just wait: there's a classic Smithian plot twist coming. (III.iv.10) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Feudal law used pretty violent methods to try to achieve its objectives, but failed. The "silent and insensible operation of foreign commerce and manufacturers gradually brought [that achievement] about." (III.iv.10) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
The selfishness of the lords meant that once they had foreign commerce and manufactures to spend their money on, they spent it on themselves instead of maintaining a retinue. They paid "productive" people through the market instead. (III.iv.10) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
(Now we know why Smith spent all that time on II.iii. Even if we still wish he'd used almost ANY OTHER WORDS.) (III.iv.10) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
So the lords are now spending the money that used to directly support thousands of poor people on, like, diamond buckles or something produced by only a few. This SOUNDS bad. (III.iv.10) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Smith doesn't say this, but people weren't doomed without a lord to support them. They were freed from their dependence on the lords to farm or move away. Not saying it always ended well, but it wasn't diamond buckles ➡ mass famine. (III.iv.10–11) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Lords, by spending all their money on themselves, pay the wages and profits of a lot of people. But lords only pay a small portion of the wages & profits of any specific people. They maintain their independence of the lords they supply. (III.iv.11–12) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
So "for the gratification of the childish, the meanest and the most sordid of all vanities, they gradually bartered their whole power and authority." (III.iv.10) This phrasing is just THE BEST. #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
All of this *waves hands* is why there's not very much old money in market society. It gets spent and distributed through wealth creation rather than hoarded for power and security. #MoreSilverTeaSetsFewerDespots (III.iv.16) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
For economic development this is Very Good News. The end of arbitrary rule by lords and the rise of the freedom of yeomen/tradespeople meant peace and good governance ➡ stock accumulation ➡ the division of labor ➡ wealth! (III.iv.10–13) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Vain, selfish landowners and self-interested merchants brought about this huge improvement, though they "had not the least intention to serve the publick." That phrasing sounds familiar, somehow. (III.iv.17) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
After ALL THOSE PAGES on the importance of emerging order and good government to the ability of countries to develop, Smith now says that the way that it happened in Europe was contrary to the natural course of things. (III.iv.19) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
But when Smith says this he opens up a whole mess of problems for all the arguments he's made up until now. (III.iv.19) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
He now says agriculture should drive the growth of cities. But he just spent Book III describing how it didn't, and in his time doesn't. So how can it be the natural order? (III.iv.19) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
He can't use the single example of the American colonies as proof of a natural order that applies in all places and times(III.iv.19) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
So the end of book III takes most of the beginning of Book III apart. And now we want a cup of tea. (III.iv.19) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
It's not the MOST satisfying ending to Book III, which contains some of the best Wealth of Nations content, in the humble opinion of the SmithTweeters. But it's the end we got.
1) Towns and countries: they benefit each other. 2) Hoarding huge tracts of land: bad for everyone. 3) Towns: they're where freedom comes from. 4) Diamond buckles > power. That's good. #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Tomorrow we move on to Systems of Political Oeconomy and other 18thC spellings. See you soon for Book IV! #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Good morning, Smithketeers! Time for Fun With 18thC Spelling! WHY does #AdamSmith, who invented modern economics, spell it with an O like some kind of crazy person? #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
It's because he's thinking about the Greek roots of the word. Oikos=Household and Nomia=Management [Sending some love to our friends @kefimgr] #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
We, the SmithTweeters, support a revival of this spelling. We're sure it won't bother any of our oeconomist friends, or their oeconomics departments. Right? #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
He does use the phrase "free traders" and "a free trade" with the first phrase appearing extensively in Book 3, Chapter 3, where he points out that sometimes kings would give certain traders tax exemptions. They were then called "free traders." adamsmithworks.org/texts/chapter-…
Look, no matter what Starship told us all back in the 80s, you can't actually build a city on rock and roll. Fortunately #AdamSmith is here to help. (with Hume in the background on synthesizer, we suspect.)
The first inhabitants of cities were traders and craftsmen who were particularly put upon before cities developed. You can tell by the kinds of things they consider privileges (deciding who their kids marry! deciding who inherits! 🤯) (III.iii.1) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Because they were probably itinerant peddlers and workers before they settled in cities, they were taxed for passing through lands, or crossing bridges, or setting up a stall to sell goods. Or whatever else someone could dream up. (III.iii.2) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Is it just us, or do you guys love it when #AdamSmith is all, “I am inventing modern economics! To do so, I must now discuss at length that time the Germans and Scythians overran the Roman Empire!” Because we are very much here for that. (III.ii.1) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
It’s probably just us. Anyway the Germans and Scythians overran the Roman Empire.
Lots of land was deserted as people fled, then grabbed up or “engrossed” by a few people, who protected their grabbed land with primogeniture and entail. (III.ii.1) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Oh man, we love this chapter. And we love it because when Smith talks about how intimately the wealth of the town and the country are intertwined, it’s such a great example of how trade is about cooperation. (III.i.1) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Is there a better way to start the day than with a good ol' Smithian subdivision? OBVIOUSLY NOT. Capital can be employed in four ways: 1) procuring rude produce (raw materials) 2) manufacturing 3) wholesale 4) retail
(II.v.2) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
All four employments depend on each other. You can't have retail without raw materials, manufacturing, wholesaling. You won't procure raw materials with no one to sell them to. &c. (II.v.3–7) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Retail needs to be defended more than the other three categories. Smith is arguing against political writers who think that the number of retailers needs to be controlled to protect consumers and the public interest. (II.v.7) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets