| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All students of economics should read this book o Amazon Эту книгу должны прочитать все студенты, изучающие экономику Alla studenter i nationalekonomi borde läsa den här boken Kaikkien taloustieteen opiskelijoiden tulisi lukea tämä kirja All students of economics should read this bookAfter myself recently having read Smith's original Wealth of Nations some 55 years too late I was missing this kind of summary, not so much for myself than for beginning students of economics. This claim is not so much for better understanding the original message of Smith, as for the simple reason of the original being too large and unnecessary detailed to be included in the obligatory exam reading list. But this Otteson is not. It is just right, concisely comprehending not only the original wording by citations but quite particularly transmitting in a polished form the Smithian spirit of the market economy. Even for me as his true disciple, a retired economics lecturer. Otteson's special significance for me has been that he crystallizes Smith as the founder of the empirical approach as the origin of all economic theory. This is because my approach as an econometrician has been just that more than deductive from the tradition of the discipline. I also very much enjoyed the rich use by Otteson (lending from the original Smith) of the very closest to the skin of the reader examples in explaining even the most intricate fundamental principles from the famous pin factory to the earning of the daily bread or brick making. They really are delicious reading in their simplicity, offered by Otteson. All in all, no question other than all five stars as a general assessment of this brilliant book. Эту книгу должны прочитать все студенты, изучающие экономикуПосле того, как я недавно прочитал книгу Смита «Богатство народов» примерно на 55 лет с опозданием, мне не хватало такого рода резюме, не столько для себя, сколько для начинающих студентов-экономистов. Это утверждение сделано не столько для лучшего понимания исходного сообщения Смита, сколько по той простой причине, что оригинал слишком велик и не требует токого количества подробностей для включения в список обязательной литературы для экзамена. Но этого Оттесона нет. Это как раз правильно, кратко понимая не только исходную формулировку цитатами, но, в частности, передавая в отшлифованной форме смиттианский дух рыночной экономики. Даже для меня, как для его истинного ученика, преподавателя экономики на пенсии. Особое значение Оттесона для меня заключалось в том, что он выкристаллизовал Смита как основателя эмпирического подхода как источника всей экономической теории. Это потому, что мой подход как эконометрист был просто такой, а нет дедуктивным, исходя из традиций этой дисциплины. Мне также очень понравилось то, как Оттесон (взаймы оригинального Смита) использовал самые близкие к коже читателя примеры в объяснении даже самых сложных фундаментальных принципов - от знаменитой булавочной фабрики до получения хлеба насущного или изготовления кирпича. Они действительно восхитительное чтение в своей простоте, предложенной Оттесоном. В общем, никаких вопросов, кроме пяти звезд в качестве общей оценки этой блестящей книги. Alla studenter i nationalekonomi borde läsa den här bokenEfter att jag nyligen läst Smiths ursprungliga Wealth of Nations cirka 55 år för sent, saknade jag den här typen av sammanfattning, inte så mycket för mig själv än för nybörjare i ekonomi. Detta påstående är inte så mycket för att bättre förstå Smiths ursprungliga budskap, som av den enkla anledningen att originalet är för stort och onödigt detaljerat för att inkluderas i den obligatoriska litteraturlistan. Men det är inte denne Otteson. Det är helt rätt, att kortfattat inte bara förstå den ursprungliga formuleringen genom citat, utan också i en polerad form överföra den Smithska andan i marknadsekonomin. Även för mig som hans sanna lärjunge, en pensionerad ekonomilektor. Ottesons speciella betydelse för mig har varit att han utkristalliserar Smith som grundaren av det empiriska synsättet som ursprunget till all ekonomisk teori. Detta beror på att mitt tillvägagångssätt som ekonometriker har varit just det mer än deduktivt från traditionen inom disciplinen. Jag njöt också mycket av Ottesons rika användning av de exemplen som ligger närmast huden på läsaren för att förklara även de mest intrikata grundläggande principer från den berömda stiftfabriken till förtjänandet av det dagliga brödet eller tillverkning avtegelstenen. De är verkligen läcker läsning i sin enkelhet, som erbjuds av Otteson. Allt som allt, ingen annan fråga än alla fem stjärnor som en allmän bedömning av denna lysande bok. Kaikkien taloustieteen opiskelijoiden tulisi lukea tämä kirjaLuin äskettäin Smithin alkuperäisen Wealth of Nations -teoksen noin 55 vuotta liian myöhään, ja kaipasin tällaista yhteenvetoa, ei niinkään itselleni kuin aloitteleville taloustieteen opiskelijoille. Tämä väite ei niinkään pyri ymmärtämään paremmin Smithin alkuperäistä viestiä, vaan siitä yksinkertaisesta syystä, että alkuperäinen teksti on liian suuri ja tarpeettoman yksityiskohtainen sisällytettäväksi pakolliseen tentin lukulistaan. Mutta tämä Otteson ei ole. Se on aivan sopiva, ytimekkäästi ei vain ymmärrä alkuperäistä sanamuotoa lainauksin, vaan välittää varsinkin hiotussa muodossa Smithin hengen markkinataloudessa. Jopa minulle hänen todellisena opetuslapsena, eläkkeellä olevalle taloustieteen lehtorille. Ottesonin erityinen merkitys minulle on ollut se, että hän kiteyttää Smithin empiirisen lähestymistavan perustajana kaiken talousteorian alkuperäksi. Tämä johtuu siitä, että minun lähestymistapani taloustieteilijänä on ollut tämä enemmän kuin lähtökohdat tieteenalan perinteestä. Nautin myös erittäin paljon siitä, että Otteson (lainaten alkuperäiseltä Smithiltä) käyttää runsaasti lukijaa lähellä olevia esimerkkejä selittäessään monimutkaisimmatkin perusperiaatteet kuuluisasta neulatehtaasta jokapäiväisen leivänan saitsemiseen tai tiilen valmistamiseen. Ne ovat kaikessa yksinkertaisuudessaan todella herkullista luettavaa Ottesonin tarjoamana. Kaiken kaikkiaan ei ole muuta kysymystä kuin kaikki viisi tähteä yleisarviona tästä loistavasta kirjasta.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huomautukset Remarks ЗамечанияPagetop |
| Parametre lines at the beginning of the reader notes | ||
| 1. Otteson-AdamSmith-ajk*$0 | ??? | |
| 2. 1,69,69,eco,eng,20211105,20211105,4,James R. Otteson: The Essential Adam Smith | ??? | |
| 3. Amazon Link to source of purchased ebook... | ??? | |
| 4. eng Link to Ajk review at source of purchased ebook... | ??? | |
| 5 | 0001 | Introduction |
| 6 | 000101 | Who was Adam Smith? |
| 10 | 0002 | 1. What is political economy? |
| 13 | 0003 | 2. Sympathy, moral sentiments, and the impartial spectator |
| 17 | 0004 | 3. The solitary islander and moral objectivity |
| 20 | 0005 | 4. Justice and beneficence |
| 22 | 000501 | An objection |
| 24 | 0006 | 5. The marketplace of morality |
| 28 | 0007 | 6. The division of labor |
| 33 | 0008 | 7. Smithian political economy |
| 33 | 000801 | The Economizer Argument |
| 33 | 000802 | The Local Knowledge Argument |
| 33 | 000803 | Premise 1: People’s individual situations, along with their values, purposes, and opportunities, are known best by individuals themselves. |
| 34 | 000804 | An objection |
| 37 | 0009 | 8. The invisible hand |
| 39 | 000901 | How important Is the “invisible hand”? |
| 41 | 0010 | 9. Self-interest, equality, and respect |
| 41 | 001001 | Equality |
| 43 | 001002 | Self-interest and respect |
| 45 | 001003 | Lying and dignity |
| 47 | 0011 | 10. The role of government |
| 51 | 0012 | 11. Government interventions in the economy? |
| 54 | 0013 | 12. Final assessment |
| 54 | 001301 | Smith’s enduring significance |
| 57 | 0014 | Works cited |
| 60 | 0015 | Suggested further reading |
| 63 | 0016 | About the author |
| 64 | 0017 | Acknowledgements |
| 65 | 0018 | Publishing information |
| 66 | 0019 | Supporting the Fraser Institute |
| 67 | 0020 | About the Fraser Institute |
| 68 | 0021 | Editorial Advisory Board |
| 68 | 0022 | ### 20211108 5* |
|
1 (5) Adam Smith (1723–1790) 2 (5) As our world becomes increasingly integrated by trade, finance, and commerce, these questions become all the more pressing. Perhaps economic globalism generates increasing material prosperity, but does it do so only at the expense of our moral values? Must we give up on our morality in order to become rich? 3 (10) One main reason for the divide is the distinction between descriptive inquiry and normative inquiry—that is, the distinction between investigations that aim to describe, empirically or factually, what is the case in the world, and those that aim to make recommendations about how we should or ought to behave. 4 (12) The ultimate goal, then, of political economy, as Smith conceived it, was to figure out what social and public institutions would enable a prospering society in which people stand a chance of leading truly happy lives. 5 (12) The political-economic recommendations Smith comes to make in WN can then be understood as the result of this two-step investigatory process. 6 (12) The main questions of Smith’s political economy, then, were: What is genuine human happiness, and how can it be achieved? What constitutes real wealth, and what is the connection between happiness and wealth? Why are some places wealthier than others, and how can poorer places become wealthier? What public institutions can we recommend that would fulfill our moral aspirations by enabling enable people to achieve happiness? And finally: How can we help all citizens, and especially our poor, to lead lives of not only prosperity but also purpose and meaning? 7 (13) The first thing to note about TMS is that Smith’s primary goal in it was not to recommend behavior. That is, his primary concern was not in telling people how they ought or ought not to behave. 8 (13) Smith wanted to understand how human beings come to form the moral sentiments they have. 9 (14) A central claim of TMS is that human beings naturally desire what Smith calls a “mutual sympathy of sentiments” with their fellows. For Smith, “sympathy” here was not equivalent to pity; rather, it was a technical term that he used in accordance with its etymological meaning of “feeling with” (TMS: 10). When Smith claims we all desire mutual sympathy of sentiments, he means that we long to see our own judgments and sentiments echoed in others. 10 (16) The fully morally mature person, Smith thinks, will judge himself by this imaginary and idealized perspective, which will give us more reliable guidance than the often biased actual spectators around us will. 11 (16) The fundamental building block of Smith’s moral anthropology is the desire for mutual sympathy of sentiments, which, because Smith believes all humans have it, thus acts like a centripetal social force, drawing us into community with others. 12 (17) Being in the company of others is, therefore, necessary not only because it might enable us to become wealthy—more on that later—but in the first instance because it enables us to become moral. 13 (20) What would constitute genuine help for such a person? Money? Food? Advice? Friendship? Nothing at all? Any of these might be required, and different circumstances will require different actions. 14 (23) Smith’s position, which is that government may be tasked with enforcing justice, but that acting with and enforcing proper beneficence must be left to individuals and private parties. 15 (27) 1. Motivating desire: The “desire for mutual sympathy of sentiments,” which Smith believes all human beings have by nature. 16 (27) 2. Market: What gets exchanged is our personal sentiments and moral judgments. 17 (3) mutual sympathy becomes a sought-after scarce resource. 18 (30) Smith argued, by contrast, that wealth does not consist in pieces of metal; it consists rather in the relative ability to satisfy one’s needs and desires. 19 (31) Step One: The labor is divided. Step Two: Production increases. Step Three: Increasing production leads to decreasing prices. Step Four: Decreasing prices leads to increasing standards of living. That’s it. 20 (32) 3 Ps: the protection of person, property, and promise. 21 (34) Smith explains in his Local Knowledge Argument, the statesman does not possess the local knowledge of individual people’s circumstances, values, goals, and resources resources that he would need in order to make good decisions for them. Does the statesman know whether you should go to law school? 22 (37) Whatever one’s goals, one wants to achieve them as efficiently as possible. Smith’s claim is that no one needs to tell us to do this: we are psychologically constructed, as it were, to do so already. 23 (37) Smith continues that each individual “generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the publick interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it”; “by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention” (WN: 456). 24 (37) Smith’s claim in this famous passage is that in seeking to accomplish their personal and local ends, they are led to discover ways to serve others’ ends as well—whether they care about those others or not. The Invisible Hand Argument hence finds a way to achieve the lofty goal of helping others from the humble motivation of self-interest. 25 (38) To summarize Smith’s argument: because I seek to achieve my goals in the most efficient manner possible (as the Economizer Argument holds), I am incentivized to make good decisions about how to achieve my goals using the resources available to me (as the Local Knowledge Argument holds), and hence, as long as we are living in a well-governed society that debars me from acting with injustice, I will be led to cooperate with you in ways that will be beneficial to you as well (as the Invisible Hand Argument holds). 26 (39) That phrase “invisible hand” occurs only once, however, in all of The Wealth of Nations. It occurs only two other times in Smith’s extant works: once in TMS (pp. 184–5) and once in an essay Smith wrote about the history of astronomy (Smith, 1982a: 49). If it occurs only so infrequently, one might wonder why so much subsequent attention has been paid to it. Is it really so central to Smith’s thought? The answer is yes, it is absolutely central to Smith’s thought. 27 (39) “The houses, the furniture, the cloathing of the rich, in a little time, become useful to the inferior and middling ranks of people. They are able to purchase them when their superiors grow weary of them, and the general accommodation of the whole people is thus gradually improved” (WN: 347). Another example: “It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society” (WN: 454). One more: “It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stock towards the employments which in ordinary cases are the most advantageous advantageous to the society” (WN: 630). Many other examples could be adduced. 28 (41) The market, Smith believed, could harness people’s industry in the service of their own ends and make it serve everyone else’s welfare, even if the welfare of others was not part of the individuals’ own motivations. 29 (41) In 1800 in America, the total population was 5.3 million souls. At that time, life expectancy at birth was an appalling 39. And gross domestic product per capita, in 2010 dollars, was $1,343, or $3.68 per person per day. And today? According to the most recent data available, the total population in the United States is now 324 million; life expectancy at birth has increased to 80; and gross domestic product per capita (in constant dollars) stands now at $57,300, or $156.98 per person per day. 30 (41) population increased some 61-fold, life expectancy has nevertheless doubled, and real GDP per capita has increased 43-fold. Truly a remarkable—and historically unprecedented—achievement. 31 (42) How, then, can Smith endorse a system of political economy that, while making us richer, nevertheless also entails that some of us will be far richer than others? To see Smith’s answer to this question, we must first recall a claim of Smith’s that I said in Chapter 6 was “to his great credit”: namely, his rejection of claims of racial or natural superiority of some over others, and his endorsement of the claim that all human beings were roughly equal in motivation, rationality, and ability. 32 (43) the most famous passage in Smith’s Wealth of Nations, and indeed perhaps in all of economics, is his “invisible hand” passage. But the second most famous passage is this one, which comes already in WN’s second chapter: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. 33 (44) “Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer” 34 (44) How might we do this? By expecting our dinner “not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker,” but, rather, by taking due and proper “regard to their own interest.” 35 (44) For Smith, then, the act of making a person an offer is a recognition of the inherent value of others; it reflects the equal dignity that each of us has, and it is a shining example of proper moral relations among people. The mutually voluntary and thus mutually beneficial transaction that is the cornerstone of a Smithian market economy is, then, not only the key to increasing general prosperity, but it is also the instantiation of truly moral human relations. 36 (44) And Smith would turn the tables on Marx: it is not the society of individual liberty, responsibility, and mutual respect that dehumanizes people; it is rather the society in which some may take from others, in which some make decisions for others, and in which therefore some have power over others that violates their inherent dignity and a proper conception of moral equality. 37 (45) as a matter of empirical fact, we do actually care about the “fortune of others.” 38 (45) we show respect for the others, and treat them as our peers who have the we show respect for the others, and treat them as our peers who have the same free moral agency that we do. 39 (48) According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, 40 (49) As long as one “does not violate the laws of justice,” one is “free to pursue his own interest his own way.” 41 (52) “People of the same trade seldom meet together,” Smith writes, “even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices” (WN: 145). 42 (54) most economists today believe in a “subjective theory of value,” which holds that a thing has whatever value a valuing agent ascribes to it, rather than holding that a thing has any objective measure of value based on how much labor went into it. 43 (55) Thus Smith’s “market model” constitutes something of a grand unification theory of social science, one that has enjoyed substantial modern vindication.11 That means that Smith might well have been on to something important. 44 (55) those countries that have most closely approximated Smithian political economy have done best: they have vastly outperformed countries that have other political-economic institutions. |
| 1 | 20211106 | +11p | =12p | 17% | ******** |
| 2 | 20211107 | +37p | =49p | 71% | ************************************ |