Reddit reviews The Wealth of Nations
We found 5 Reddit comments about The Wealth of Nations. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Reddit reviews The Wealth of NationsWe found 5 Reddit comments about The Wealth of Nations. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
From an economics perspective:
From a social perspective:
From a moral perspective:
There's many more than just these, and there's a lot of underlying philosophy that modern conservationism is based on. I'd also categorize these books as a basis for "intellectual conservatism" as opposed to say "cultural conservatism". Something to note is that little of the conservative mindset is focused on policy and politics, per se. There is instead a strong emphasis on personal action and collective culture, the value of morals, and a focus on introspection. So while these books will perhaps help you understand a conservative perspective better, they will not likely provide a good basis for engaging in political debate. For that maybe you want a book by Ben Shapiro or something.
> requiring knowledge of economics, computer programming, and the blockchain.
Unfortunately, to become an expert in Bitcoin, those are the competencies you'll need to master. There are some better ground-up instructions. What I would recommend.
If you even skim those three books you'll know more than 90% of the people who hold Bitcoin today.
you have Stockholm Syndrome bad. so bad that you cannot make the distinction between consumer and shareholder. seek help from your brainwashing!
and bribery and monopoly is NOT capitalism. source: adam smith
https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Adam-Smith/dp/1505577128/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502204263&sr=8-1&keywords=adam+smith
For the second half I'd recommend Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici as a good starting point. It's going to respond to a lot of other thinkers, including Marx, so it can be a good starting point for further investigation on all the subjects I mentioned.
The first half isn't going to be the thesis of any works that I know of; but more of a truism that appears throughout a ton of works. I'll respond in part with an explanation and recommend some basic readings that might flesh out the ideas more.
The word "economy" comes from the Greek "oikos" meaning "home" and "nomos" meaning which refers to the function of it. It's very similar to the word "ecology" which is the combination of "oikos" and "logos", or the logic of the home. As a result, for the ancient Greeks, "economy" referred to the functioning of the household. The house and surrounding land in Athens was referred to a "demo" and constituted a single economic unit run by a single family. A government built with these units was called a "democracy", or a nation of "demos". You can read more about this in The Ancient City by Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges to understand the basic terms and theories going into the structures of our society today, which are based heavily on the ancient Greek language and understanding of the world (as the article above indicates as well).
A fun book that discusses the theme of economics and the formation of society is Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals. It's not full of references or citations, but more of a thought experiment on the subject that I think lays some good groundwork for understanding some of the motivations for the creation of a society. A more specific analysis on the goals and aspirations of an economy can be found in the general cannon, like Smith's Wealth of Nations and the critical response from Marx in Das Kapital. These are both introductory texts on the subject and a little outdated of course. If you want a more contemporary understanding of economic systems and what they do today, I'd recommend Wolff's Contending Economic Theories. These books aren't about why economies come first in society (other than the Genealogy of Morals), but they are a knowledge foundation as to why societies are organized in order to create an economy.
God damn you love the BBC. Do you work for them?
Who the fuck says "I know they were biased against my country's referendum" then goes on to be an apologist for them.
So its not about left and right. That is just a distraction. It is about whatever the Government supports. Since that is all over the place (left and right) it makes sense that both sides point fingers and idiots like you think they have it all figured out. "See they cant be biased because both sides accuse them".
The reality is there is only one side to the BBC. The Government side. Because they are Government mouthpiece..
Prove me wrong.
Was the BBC for the Scottish Referendum?
Was the BBC for the Iraq War?
Was the BBC for the invasion of Syria?
Do they support Israel at every turn?
Yep, just like the British Government...
This is how the free market works. If you have a good or service people want, they pay for it. You do not profess to be fair and balanced so the Gov should institute a tax and make everybody pay for it for you.
Here is a book you might want to read if you can get your brainwashed ass out from in front of the BBC--- Oh, and Fuck you...
http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Adam-Smith/dp/1505577128/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427228310&sr=8-1&keywords=adam+smith