" Among men, on the contrary, the most dissimilar geniuses are of use to one another; the different produces of their respective talents, by the general disposition to truck, barter, and exchange, being brought, as it were, into a common stock, where every man may purchase whatever part of the produce of other men's talents he has occasion for."

This includes both the street porter and the philosopher. Thus, we need pamphlets like "You Can Get Rich With PLS!" to convince ourselves or our parents that it's "worthwhile," since profitability is the measure of use to society.

Perhaps we can pause and consider: society, in one way or another, affords us liberal education, a chance to not contribute to the general public but to only receive the labor of professors and janitors, and the vitals and "fewel" to keep us alive. Is it mere cultural conflict to accept this, when the low-wage laborers who form the foundation of our consumer economy would not necessarily voluntarily give it to us, believing in its common betterment? If they don't afford it to us voluntarily, are we taking it from them? Where is the surplus coming from by which we can "mess around" for four years? What are we going to give back?

I work therefore I am...bad joke.

"How many different trades are employed in each branch of the linen and woollen manufacturers" 1.1, p. 6.

Somewhat in response to Matt and Pat (hehe) I was struck by Smith's focus on labor as something that connects people.  Many people labor in many different trades in many different places to produce one thing; people are connected through products and through labor.  Labor also defines people against one another: we both worked to produce this pin, but you drew out the wire and I ground the top.  Finally, people are defined by their labor: I am a farmer, you are an investment banker, you are a stay-at-home mom.  Matt and Patt-man have rightly pointed out a paradigm shift (and I hope we discuss how significant that shift is or is not) from man as a spiritual individual to a working man.

I've been thinking about labor in relation to our identity.  Our labor connects, separates, and defines us.  If someone drops the ball and doesn't do their work there may be consequences for the whole community, but if you take away someone's industry they may not know who they are anymore.  There is also unseen labor such as that in the home that very much affects who we are.  There is absolutely a connection between labor and person, between work and sense of self.  What does Smith have to say about how labor shapes and stunts the self?

"Wealth, as Mr. Hobbes says, is power. But the person who either acquires or succeeds to a great fortune, does not necessarily acquire or succeeds to a great fortune, does not necessarily acquire or succeed to any political power, either civil or military. His fortune may, perhaps, afford him the means of acquiring both, but the mere possession of that fortune does not necessarily convey to him either."

To start, I would like to comment on the rambling that Smith goes on: It was told that Adam Smith was so absent minded that at one point in his life he just wandered and was so out of it, that people could not find him for three weeks. He was found later in only his underwear. Whether or not this story is true, it might explain why Smith seems to go on certain tangents about metal or coins. 

Regarding the quote, I find this one in particular to be quite thought provoking. We all can agree that in any point in time it seems that the more money or land one has, the more power they have. But, at what point does that power shift from responsible distribution and compassion for the civil and military duties to greed and lust for power? Similar to the question I asked last week, what is to prevent someone who is born into power to not simply take power by paying his way up? What can Smith say to prevent something like this?

Shift to the Mechanical

I was struck by the shift I felt Wealth of Nations was making from our previous readings, moving from the individual as a thinking, reasoning creature to the individual as a tool, or even a cog, in the mechanical workings of society. This hit hardest for me around chapter 8 when Smith was discussing poverty. Smith contended that the life of poverty is much worse than a rich life, and that the division of labor helped make the wealthy life possible and better. Though I know there is a difference between a life without poverty and a life of excess, I couldn't help think of all the problems money can bring, especially with this economic crisis we are going through. I though both of the idea that 'the more money you have, the more you can lose,' in relation to the crisis, and of people who live their lives in poverty (sometimes on purpose) and have incredible, wonderfully fulfilling lives (such as Ghandi, or missionaries, etc. ). I thought the difference between these two ideas, living well rich and living well in poverty, was that Smith's living well is concerned with the human as a cog in the mechanical society, whereas living well in poverty looks at the individual as a spiritual being that does not need the productions available through the division of labour. After pondering this, I found myself stuck wondering which was more important: should we look at man like Smith, in how he fits in a society, or should we look at man as a spiritual, thinking creature as we had been doing before?

Philosophy and Begging

"In the progress of sociey, philosophy or speculation becomes, like every other employment, the principal or sole trade and occupation of a particular class of citizens. Like every other employment too, it is subdivided into a great number of different branches, each of which affords occupations to a peculiar tribe or class of philosophers" (11).

---

"We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend on it entirely" (15).

"Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevelence only" (15).

"Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniencies, and amusments of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people" (33).

My business and economics major has a magnet on our refrigerator that drives me crazy. It says, "You're not paid to think! Shut up and do your job." While my roommate just likes to provoke people, Smith might agree with the magnet. I had some questions about how workers could invent things with a limited view, and so I was relieved when he allowed some improvements from philosophy. However, he then proceeded to make philosophy susceptible to divisions of specialization. Isn't philosophy an engagement with the meaning of life, and hence with all of the factors of life? How can a philosopher specialize, unless by specialize is meant 'think about everything all the time?' If he does specialize, he must necessarily be leaving some factor out of the meaning of life; and so could a 'specialized philosopher' help anyone? But then again, the workers don't take into account all factors of life, and they still come up with improvements, so likewise a philosopher might come up with improvements, if not perfect ones.

---

Taking my second, third, and fourth quotes together, there seems to be very little difference separating the beggar and the working man. Why can we not address ourselves to someone else's humanity instead of his or her self-love? What would need to be done for such an address to take precedence over one to self-love? And, most importantly, it seems very hard to exist without addressing both poeple's humanity and self-love. Is it not true that in making a deal, I am more likely to buy from someone whom I judge more benevolent or good, i.e. more "human." Or is Smith all the way on the side of self-love?