Two new posts of mine have appeared on the Political Theology Today blog
Apparently, Adam Smith lived with his mother and was, as one commentator puts it, ‘unmarriageable’. Perhaps the reason may be found in one of his common practices:
He became one of the sights of Edinburgh, where he was given to rambling the streets in a trance, half-dressed and twitching all over, heatedly debating with himself in a peculiar affected voice and careering along with his inimitable “worm like” gait. (Norman Davies, Europe: A History, p. 604)
The other day as I was out at the shops, I was pondering my chapter in Idols of Nations called ‘Adam Smith the Story-Teller’. But I needed a piss, so to the toilets near the shops I went. Minding my own ‘business’ and deep in thought, I completed the required task and made to leave. As I did so, the door in the cubicle before me creaked open to reveal a somewhat hairy man with his pants around his ankles. One hand was busily at work upon a very visible ‘hand’ while the other raised a finger and beckoned to me invitingly. A lop-sided grin on the man’s face completed the picture. I can say that it was not enough to entice me to join him. Even though the image remains etched on my brain, I must have been there for a nano-second, for before I knew I was out and in the shops. The thing is, he was a dead-ringer for this guy:
Wealth of Nations really is a massive jumble of material, reading much like a compendium into which Adam Smith threw his opinions on the world, the universe, anything. I fail to see how mind-numbing and seemingly endless accounts of herring preservation, turnpikes on English roads and bridges, and the varying roles of the clergy since the Roman Empire, have anything much to do with what causes “wealth” among the nations. So too his reflections on the current state of universities:
If the teacher happens to be a man of sense, it must be an unpleasant thing to him to be conscious, while he is lecturing his students, that he is either speaking or reading nonsense, or what is very little better than nonsense. It must too be unpleasant to him to observe that the greater part of his students desert his lectures; or perhaps attend upon them with plain enough marks of neglect, contempt, and derision. (V.i.f.14)
An autobiographical moment perhaps, since he is, after all, a “man of sense.” As for a young man engaging in a bit of travel before studying:
he commonly returns home more conceited, more unprincipled, more dissipated, and more incapable of any serious application either to study or to business, then he could well have become in so short a time, had he lived at home. By travelling so very young, by spending in the most frivolous dissipation the most precious years of his life, at a distance from the inspection and controul of his parents and relations, every useful habit, which the earlier parts of his education might have had some tendency to form in him, instead of being rivetted and confirmed, is almost necessarily either weakened or effaced. Nothing but the discredit into which the universities are allowing themselves to fall, could ever have brought into repute so very absurd a practice as that of travelling at this early period of life. By sending his son abroad, a father delivers himself, at least for some time, from so disagreeable an object as that of a son unemployed, neglected, and going to ruin before his eyes. (V.i.f.36)
Smith was, by all accounts, a jealous and surly man given to sudden sudden bouts of extreme anger.
What is the real cause of a famine? A bad season perhaps, or greedy grain speculators. No, for Adam Smith,
a famine has never arisen from any other cause but the violence of government attempting, by improper means, to remedy the inconveniencies of a dearth.
In fact, those silly farmers and wasteful workers who complain of bad seasons are really not making the best use of their resources:
the scantiest crop, if managed with frugality and economy, will maintain, through the year, the same number of people that are commonly fed in a more affluent manner by one of moderate plenty.
But if you have a real famine, then the solution is simply to let the grain merchants and speculators loose:
The unlimited, unrestrained freedom of the corn trade, as it is the only effectual preventative of the miseries of a famine, so it is the best palliative of the inconveniencies of a dearth (Wealth of Nations, IV.v.b.5-7)
Ah, those dreadfully sinful, interfering governments.
That spinner of tales, Adam Smith, provides the answer:
It is not the multitude of alehouses, to give the most suspicious example, that occasions a general disposition to drunkenness among the common people; but that disposition arising from other causes necessarily gives employment to a multitude of ale-houses (Wealth of Nations, II.v.7).
The same argument is used by gun lobbies: don’t blame it on the guns, for the real problem is the occasional nutter who uses one. More guns, then, since people want them. And more ale-houses, since they meet a certain demand. If someone becomes an alcoholic or murderer as a result, well, that’s their problem.
Ethnocentrism is run of the mill stuff for the classical economists, often in virulent form. China causes them particular headaches, given its wealth, population, and sophistication. Isn’t Western Europe, especially England, the most advanced place on the globe. What do to do about China? Forget facts, just make up stuff. For instance, Adam Smith opines:
The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far surpasses that of the most beggarly nations in Europe. In the neighbourhood of Canton many hundred, it is commonly said, many thousand families have no habitation on the land, but live constantly in little fishing boats upon the rivers and canals. The subsistence which they find there is so scanty that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage thrown overboard from any European ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other countries. Marriage is encouraged in China, not by the profitableness of children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in the water. The performance of this horrid office is even said to be the avowed business by which some people earn their subsistence. ( Wealth of Nations, I.viii.24)
And these fantasies are by no means original to him, since they are standard fare in these woeful works. Come to think of it, I hear comments like this today, even from Lefties who should know better,