On March 9, 1776 was published The Wealth of Nations.
Here are 9 not that well-known quotes from it.
Marriage is encouraged in China not by the profitableness of children but by the liberty of destroying them.
All merchants & master manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price & ...lessening the sale of their goods...They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent w regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains.
The exorbitant rewards of players, opera singers, opera dancers, etc. are founded upon these two principles;
the rarity and beauty of the talents, and the discredit of employing them in this manner.
How much lower ranks of people in the country are really superior to those of the town, is well known to every man whom either business or curiosity has led to converse much with both.
All the ancient arts of Mexico and Peru have never furnished one single manufacture to Europe.
The late resolution of the Quakers in Pennsylvania to set at liberty all their negro slaves, may satisfy us that their number cannot be very great.
To expect, indeed, that the freedom of trade should ever be entirely restored in Great Britain is as absurd as to expect that an Oceana or Utopia should ever be established in it.
The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatever.
The church of Rome may be considered the most formidable combination that ever was formed against the authority and security of civil governments, as well as against the liberty, reason and happiness of mankind.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What were the great revolutions I witnessed in my life?
The first & really big was the Iranian revolution. I had many Iranian friends. They were all anti-Pahlavi. But quickly they split into two or three camps. The revolution had global resonance: I remember that my father disagreed with my mother over it. In Belgrade! They had no dog in the fight. But it was big.
Reagan's revolution was also big. He upended things. Pushed back against the USSR that foolishly invaded Afghanistan the year before & not only went into a war it could not win, but challenged the basis of the Cold War order. Reagan was a Cold Warrior who wished for peace.
The third was Solidarnosc & Walesa. They not only came suddenly from nowhere but created a 10-milkon strong workers' movement in opposition to a (seemingly) workers' state. It reshuffled all ideological stereotypes. It was impossible to classify as left or right.
Consider income composition in socialism and developed capitalism. They are fairly similar. The differences are in the lack of income from K, greater family-related transfers, and quasi-absence of direct taxes (other than proportional flat wage taxes) in socialism.
Then extremely low skill premium of 3-5% vs 18-70% for West European countries (and even more in the US).
Then, much less redistributive social transfers. While UK/Ireland had very pro-poor transfers, socialist countries had flat transfers. Thransfers depended on family composition and were about the same regardless of underlying income.
This is the second year that in my teaching I spend two hours discussing income inequality under socialism, the way it was, not normative stuff. The most important thing is to tell students that socialism is not capitalism with less inequality. The logic of the system was entirely different.
The salient points.
Nationalization of capital & end of incomes from K reduces inequality directly.
Wage compression: very low skill premium. Explained both by free schooling and ideological preference for less skilled workers.
Relatively large (but not larger than in modern capitalism) social transfers directed toward families and old-age persons.
Large but almost totally flat direct taxes, mostly in the for of a wage tax.
After reading @pseudoerasmus excellent thread on the evolution of devt thinking and the role of institutions and @ingridharvold, Kesar, Dutt paper on the same topic (both published within the past 48 hours) I asked myself the following Q: Why did I like AJR early work so much & then lost interest?
I liked both their "Origins.." and "Reversal..". The reason is that I found in these papers the themes with which I was already familiar from reading neo-Marxist literature, including S Amin and G Arrighi. But I always felt dissatisfaction with that literature's "sporadic" use of empirical evidence.
What AJR provided was the same story with much more data and modern methodology. So it was a big step forward.
The problems started afterwards: their inability to explain communism (political inequality but economic equality), and the turn away from understanding of capitalism
We shall never know if the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was intentionally targeted or not.
Here are some arguments why I find accidental bombing highly unlikely.
-This was the only building targeting mistake in 78 days of very precise bombing.
-The ostensible target was a financial institution (bank giving loans, for, among other things, old SRFY's sales of armament). But that bank no longer worked; Serbia was bankrupt; it was not giving loans to anyone.
-It is the only fin institution having been ostensibly targeted.
-The Chinese emb & the Bank 2 very different buildings. Not only when you face them. Even if you have a 2-dimensional map, emb was facing, at an angle, towards the river, a solitary building w/a fence. The bank is 150m away across a 6-lane highway, adjoining another building.