Isn't wealth of nations by Adam Smith arguably dated and considered more of a historical reference than a modern economics book? To include is an economics book and not a finance book? I own it, never read it only referenced it, too dry for my taste.
Unfortunately, more often than not, reading such books is not that much fun. I had no choice in the past but now - whenever possible - I let way more intelligent people give me the essence and, time permitting, complement with parts or whole texts. I don't know about you but I get much more this way!
(It is worth reading further, I am not the author.)
"What can I tell you about The Wealth on Nation? It's a sweeping book, a grandiose book an unbelievably textured and detailed book that is beautifully written with a deep concern and interest in the human nature, it rewards reading it even today! However, I don't recommend you read all of it, is well over 1,000 pages and he has a tendency, as authors had in that time, to sort of go of in some digression for twenty or thirty pages before he comes back to the main point so you can be reading along and just thinking: I don't know were this is going! My favorite digression is one called A Digression Concerning the Variation in The Value of Silver During the Course of The Last Four Centuries and it goes on about 90 pages and then comes back to the main argument. So, if you pick up the Wealth, just remember that kind of rambles in places."
I find this relevant as well:
"Why is it so rewarding to read Adam Smith? I think is largely because Smith is willing to avoid formulas, he is willing to make disturbing blank statements, he is willing to avoid being doctrinaire. Smith is not an ideologue, many people who quote Adam Smith are much more ideologically... one track than Adam Smith ever was. To give you couple of examples to Smith willingness to be appropriately cynical and appropriately thoughtful about everything, in the later parts of the Wealth of Nations he describes different roles for government and he is not, he clearly is not a pure laissez faire a physiocrat let it go kind of person. Among this chapter he talks about government's role in national defense, in law enforcement, in setting copyrights and patents in enforcing contracts, in regulating mortgages in issuing control over paper money and the banking system. He proposed taxing alcohol to reduce the consumption cause is not good for people. He proposed limits on the the rate of interests to make sure people don't borough money at a really high interest and not be able to pay it back. He talks about how it might be unrealistic to have free trade right away and unrealistic to have trade all the time and sometimes you are going to need to do things for foreign policy reasons. He talks about public work projects like railways and canals.* He talks about education and how it is important for the government to provide education for the future.
So in all those ways if you think about Smith as someone who says: just let that market rip, you're wrong; I mean that is not how Adam Smith saw the world, he was a practical guy, a Scottish philosopher he was clearly willing to see the world in much more nuanced kinds of ways than that. To give you a sense of the consistency of his skepticism you know he was not someone who sort of thought, as some characterize Smith 'well, just leave it to the business people, business people are smart'. That's not right, Smith was not willing to say to anyone 'well, you now, will just leave it in their hands'. He really took serious this notion that self-interest is going to be greediness and we are going to keep it under control."
Timothy Taylor - Legacies of Great Economists.
inch:
