#WealthOfNations I.ii is all about the secret sauce origin story: why does the division of labor happen in the first place? #AdamSmith illustrates (in part) with doggos to hold our attention. (I.ii.2,5) 🐶 #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets #DoggosDontTrade

Divsion of labor, Smith said yesterday, is responsible for a whole heckuva lot. But who thought of it? Nobody! It's "not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion." (I.ii.1) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
There's no mastermind behind economic exchange, our "propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another" (I.ii.1) arises out of our natural tendency to persuade one another and better our condition. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Yeah, there's a lot in that first paragraph. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
You know what's coming, right? 🍖🍻🍞 Butchers, brewers, bakers: they don't make us things because they love us. They're not our moms. (I.ii.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Instead, we persuade them (with money! 💰💰💰) that it's best for them to provide what we want. Everybody wins! (I.ii.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
This may sound cynical, but this kind of cooperation is all we've got, says Smith. The world's not made of moms. We have to connect to others by division of labor. (I.ii.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
In "civilized"—economically developed—society, we can't be atomistic. Development only happens with division of labor, and division of labor puts us "at all times in need of the co-operation and assistance of great multitudes." (I.ii.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Of course, our interdependence means that we each hold a kind of power over each other. That leaves us vulnerable if the system collapses. So we'd better hope that the market system is heckin' robust. (I.ii.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
We are so dependent on one another and our ability to persuade each other to help us through the market, rather than through personal appeals, that even a beggar can't rely entirely on the kindness of others. (I.ii.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets #WeAreAllConnected
Beggars might depend on the kindness of strangers to get money, but then they have to spend it to get the things they need. They use the market, just like the rest of us. (I.ii.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
OK, apparently the second paragraph is a doozey, too. (I.ii.2) That's just how this book rolls. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
All well and good, you're probably thinking by now, but I was promised dogs. WHERE ARE THE DOGS? Well, they're not trading with each other, we can tell you that much. 🐶🙅‍♀️💰 (I.ii.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets #DoggosDontTrade
This matters a lot! Dogs can make frens at the park, but otherwise they are useless to each other, no matter how different their skills are. But people are more useful to each other the more different we become! (I.ii.5) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets #DoggosDontTrade
Here's Smith at his best: What makes us different from each other? Basically, the division of labor. Not our family, our wealth, our nation, or our power. We're born equal, and our habits, customs, and education determine where we end up. (I.ii.4) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
So markets and the division of labor emerge because we get good at stuff and help each other out. Division of labor makes us more different from one another. Markets make those differences the basis for cooperation. (I.ii.1–5) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Tomorrow, one of @Econtalker 's favorite sections of #WealthOfNations. Stay tuned, Smithketeers! We'll see you then!

More from @AdamSmithWorks

The great thing about #AdamSmith is that when he's about to go off on a 65 page tangent, he warns you. Humans, we bring you the DIGRESSIONS ON SILVER! #OhLawdHeComin #WealthOfTweets

Oh King Edward III, it’s adorable that you think you can just decree that servants and laborers become permanently content with wages fixed at the rate they were at five years ago.
https://t.co/NtOmttquJ3 (I.xi.e.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets


He’s already digressing, and he can’t take a minute to share the menu from that famously magnificent feast with us? (I.xi.e.4–5) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

Super Important 18thC Vocab Geekery: When Smith says the price of the quarter of wheat wasn't “supposed to be < 4 oz silver” he doesn’t mean “shouldn't be.” He means “wasn't thought to be.” He’s not approving of fixed prices. (I.xi.e.7) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

So. Many. Wheat. Prices. (But really, Smith is talking about how much wheat it takes to buy a quantity of silver, NOT how much silver it takes to buy a quantity of wheat.) (I.xi.e.1–14) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

More from Economy

Long rant: This @WSJ article bemoaning the decline of price theory is really worth highlighting. The economic theories and so called "laws of economics" that the WSJ consistently and religiously defends, are the source of their authority, power and privilege.


So called economic "theories" like "you get paid exactly what you are worth" and "markets are perfectly efficient" and "when wages rise, jobs fall" and "raising taxes on the rich kills jobs and growth" and "increasing justice decreases economic efficiency" and...

"Government intervention in markets always creates more harm than good" and "any regulation that constrains corporations kills growth and productivity", etc etc are effectively a protection racket for the rich. It is a set of internally consistent and mathematized conjectures...

That are all demonstrably nonsense. But getting people to accept these "theories" as laws of nature and immutable, timeless truths is the most effective way our current economic elites have found to maintain and enhance the status of the powerful and persuade the weak and poor...

to shut the fuck up and accept their lot in life. Now, FINALLY, some economists- are actually beginning to look at the real world evidence to determine whether these propositions actually describe anything real here on planet earth. Let me save you some time. The answer is NO.

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?