[x_plus_one]

The U.S. was the first nation on earth of any size or consequence to undertake the structuring of a whole national economy on the basis of natural law and the free-market concept described by Adam Smith.

And now it is the last.

[Rurudyne]

For a long while after the founding of this Republic we were blessed with a central government that because it could do so little, could screw up so little ... though not for want of trying ... and as such our federal government was often among the least competent at being incompetent.

By default.

But with the men who cast the Constitution aside to embrace Arbitrary government the varied objects for federal attention have grown without limit and so it’s ability to be incompetent has similarly increased: so now ours is among the most competent at being incompetent.

Truly, “Progress!”

[Fiddlstix]

I read The Wealth of Nations many years ago. I highly recommend it.
I wish more people would read it.
Heck, I wish it was taught in schools

[econjack]

As an econ grad student, I have to read TWoN and remember it laying the ground work for a capitalistic system. Another equally important work is Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, which lays down what the economic responsibilities of gov't are based on the tenets stated in the Constitution. Essentially, the role of the gov't is twofold: 1) the policing of property rights (e.g., a legal system), and 2) provision of social overhead capital (e.g., those things society needs, but aren't provided in private markets, like national defense, public roads, etc.)

After reading his work, look at the idiotic programs that have been created by politicians to buy votes. Free cell phones for deadbeats? WTF.

[gattaca]

bump

[mjp]

American Founders soon recognized the importance of The Wealth of Nations when it came to economics and sound fiscal policy.

In this book Smith defined the link between commerce and cultural progress, which the rest of the Scottish Enlightenment had written about and celebrated, but not really proved. In a modern commercial society, as it produces more, in greater quantities, it becomes so productive that it can supply the wants and needs not only of those who work, but of those who don't. But in order to be able to do this, there must be economic inequality.