The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith (the best motivational books .TXT) 📕

ii, pp. 323⁠–⁠5. ↩

System of Moral Philosophy, pp. 340⁠–⁠1. ↩

System of Moral Philosophy, vol. ii, pp. 341⁠–⁠2. ↩

Francis Hutcheson, pp. 232⁠–⁠5. ↩

In the preface to Hutcheson’s System of Moral Philosophy, pp. xxxv, xxxvi. ↩

Rae, Life of Adam Smith, p. 411. ↩

Moral Sentiments, 1759, pp. 464⁠–⁠6. ↩

Below, here. ↩

Moral Sentiments, 1759, p. 474. ↩

Moral Sentiments, 1759, p. 483. ↩

Moral Sentiments, p. 485. ↩

Moral Sentiments, 1759, p. 487. ↩

Fable of the Bees, 1714, preface. ↩

Pp. 11⁠–⁠13 in the ed. of 1705. ↩

Pp. 427⁠–⁠8 in 2nd ed., 1723. ↩

P. 465 in ed. of 1724. ↩

Below, here. ↩

Lectures, p. 197. ↩

Above, here and here. Moreover, before bringing out the second edition of his Discourses, Hume wrote to Adam Smith asking for suggestions. That Smith made no remark on the protectionist passage in the discourse on the Balance of Trade seems to be indicated by the fact that it remained unaltered (see Hume’s Essays, ed. Green & Grose, vol. i, pp. 59, 343 and 344). ↩

This word, with “annually” just below, at once marks the transition from the older British economists’ ordinary practice of regarding the wealth of a nation as an accumulated fund. Following the physiocrats, Smith sees that the important thing is how much can be produced in a given time. ↩

Cp. with this phrase Locke, Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and Raising the Value of Money, ed. of 1696, p. 66, “the intrinsic natural worth of anything consists in its fitness to supply the necessities or serve the conveniencies of human life.” ↩

The implication that the nation’s welfare is to be reckoned by the average welfare of its members, not by the aggregate, is to be noticed. ↩

Ed. 1 reads “with which labour is generally applied in it.” ↩

This second circumstance may be stretched so as to include the duration and intensity of the labour of those who are usefully employed, but another important circumstance, the quantity and quality of the accumulated instruments of production, is altogether omitted. ↩

Ed. 1 reads “and.” ↩

Only one cause, the division of labour, is actually treated. ↩

For the physiocratic origin of the technical use of the terms “distribute” and “distribution” see the Editor’s Introduction. ↩

This word slips in here as an apparently unimportant synonym of “useful,” but subsequently ousts “useful” altogether, and is explained in such a way that unproductive labour may be useful; see esp. below here. ↩

See the index for the examples of the use of this term. ↩

Ed. 1 does not contain “to explain.” ↩

Ed. 1 reads “what is the nature.” ↩

Ed. 1 reads “is treated of in.” ↩

Ed. 1 reads “of the society.” ↩

Read in conjunction with the first two paragraphs, this sentence makes it clear that the wealth of a nation is to be reckoned by its per capita income. But this view is often temporarily departed from in the course of the work; see the index, s.v. Wealth. ↩

This phrase, if used at all before this time, was not a familiar one. Its presence here is probably due to a passage in Mandeville, Fable of the Bees, pt. ii (1729), dial. vi, p. 335: “Cleo.⁠ ⁠… When once men come to be governed by written laws, all the rest comes on apace⁠ ⁠… No number of men, when once they enjoy quiet, and no man needs to fear his neighbour, will be long without learning to divide and subdivide their labour. Hor. I don’t understand you. Cleo. Man, as I have hinted before, naturally loves to imitate what he sees others do, which is the reason that savage people all do the same thing: this hinders them from meliorating their condition, though they are always wishing for it: but if one will wholly apply himself to the making of bows and arrows, whilst another provides food, a third builds huts, a fourth makes garments, and a fifth utensils, they not only become useful to one another, but the callings and employments themselves will, in the same number of years, receive much greater improvements, than if all had been promiscuously followed by every one of the five. Hor. I believe you are perfectly right there; and the truth of what you say is in nothing so conspicuous as it is in watch-making, which is come to a higher degree of perfection than it would have been arrived at yet, if the whole had always remained the employment of one person; and I am persuaded that even the plenty we have of clocks and watches, as well as the exactness and beauty they may be made of, are chiefly owing to the division that has been made of that art into many branches.” The index contains, “Labour, The usefulness of dividing and subdividing it.” Joseph Harris, Essay Upon Money and Coins, 1757, pt. i, § 12, treats of the “usefulness of distinct trades,” or “the advantages accruing to mankind from their betaking themselves severally to different occupations,” but does not use the phrase “division of labour.”