We have to pause now, because we have to have a whole new tweet thread on #AdamSmith and “savage nations,” because he’s going to keep using this kind of phrase, so we need to talk about it. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
More from @AdamSmithWorks
Book II of #WealthOfNations! It's all about stock! Not the kind you fill with chicken and noodles, but the kind that (according to #AdamSmith) makes commercial society go 'round. (II.intro)
https://t.co/FlxQLGdjbW
#WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
First! A quick review: without division of labor, every person must provide everything they need. No one accumulates or stores up stock. You do what you can with what you have when you have it. (II.intro.1) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
But once the division of labor develops (remember, it’s the secret sauce!) we have so many wants that we can’t provide for them all ourselves. Most of them are provided for by others, and we purchase their labor with our own. (II.intro.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Here's why this all matters when we think about stock: we can’t purchase other people’s labor until we have completed (and been paid for) our own. So we need a stock of supplies to sustain us until we can finish our work and get paid. (II.intro.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Obviously, we need that BEFORE we start working in this way. So to get the division of labor you need the accumulation of stock. It’s an ingredient of the secret sauce. (All the best sauces are made with stock!) (II.intro.3)
https://t.co/wi1HtrmBPb
#WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
https://t.co/FlxQLGdjbW
#WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
First! A quick review: without division of labor, every person must provide everything they need. No one accumulates or stores up stock. You do what you can with what you have when you have it. (II.intro.1) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
But once the division of labor develops (remember, it’s the secret sauce!) we have so many wants that we can’t provide for them all ourselves. Most of them are provided for by others, and we purchase their labor with our own. (II.intro.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Here's why this all matters when we think about stock: we can’t purchase other people’s labor until we have completed (and been paid for) our own. So we need a stock of supplies to sustain us until we can finish our work and get paid. (II.intro.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Obviously, we need that BEFORE we start working in this way. So to get the division of labor you need the accumulation of stock. It’s an ingredient of the secret sauce. (All the best sauces are made with stock!) (II.intro.3)
https://t.co/wi1HtrmBPb
#WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
More from For later read
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
This is an excellent report, and I'm glad to have joined the study group. The central focus on avoiding war is understandable--a US-China war would be catastrophic and should be avoided. But protecting Taiwan's security and prosperity requires doing more. 1/x https://t.co/P0Sg4LJcpV
— Bonnie Glaser / \u845b\u4f86\u5100 (@BonnieGlaser) February 12, 2021
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/