Chapter 2
Of the Principle which gives occasion to the Division of Labour
THIS division of labour, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.
Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature of which no further account can be given; or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to inquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog. Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. 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 chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this principle ultimately provides him with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with them as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and by purchase. With the money which one man gives him he purchases food. The old clothes which another bestows upon him he exchanges for other old clothes which suit him better, or for lodging, or for food, or for money, with which he can buy either food, clothes, or lodging, as he has occasion.
As it is by treaty, by barter, and by purchase that we obtain from one another the greater part of those mutual good offices which we stand in need of, so it is this same trucking disposition which originally gives occasion to the division of labour. In a tribe of hunters or shepherds a particular person makes bows and arrows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity than any other. He frequently exchanges them for cattle or for venison with his companions; and he finds at last that he can in this manner get more cattle and venison than if he himself went to the field to catch them. From a regard to his own interest, therefore, the making of bows and arrows grows to be his chief business, and he becomes a sort of armourer. Another excels in making the frames and covers of their little huts or movable houses. He is accustomed to be of use in this way to his neighbours, who reward him in the same manner with
cattle and with venison, till at last he finds it his interest to dedicate himself entirely to this employment, and to become a sort of house-carpenter. In the same manner a third becomes a smith or a brazier, a fourth a tanner or dresser of hides or skins, the principal part of the nothing of savages. And thus the certainty of being able to exchange all that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men’s labour as he may have occasion for, encourages every man to apply himself to a particular occupation, and to cultivate and bring to perfection whatever talent or genius he may possess for that particular species of business.
The difference of natural talents in different men is, in reality, much less than we are aware of; and the very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause as the effect of the division of labour. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature as from habit, custom, and education. When they came into the world, and for the first six or eight years of their existence, they were perhaps very much alike, and neither their parents nor playfellows could perceive any remarkable difference. About that age, or soon after, they come to be employed in very different occupations. The difference of talents comes then to be taken notice of, and widens by degrees, till at last the vanity of the philosopher is willing to acknowledge scarce any resemblance. But without the disposition to truck, barter, and exchange, every man must have procured to himself every necessary and conveniency of life which he wanted. All must have had the same duties to perform, and the same work to do, and there could have been no such difference of employment as could alone give occasion to any great difference of talents.
As it is this disposition which forms that difference of talents, so remarkable among men of different professions, so it is this same disposition which renders that difference useful. Many tribes of animals acknowledged to be all of the same species derive from nature a much more remarkable distinction of genius, than what, antecedent to custom and education, appears to take place among men. By nature a philosopher is not in genius and disposition half so different from a street porter, as a mastiff is from a greyhound, or a greyhound from a spaniel, or this last from a shepherd’s dog. Those different tribes of animals, however, though all of the same species, are of scarce any use to one another. The strength of the mastiff is not, in the least, supported either by the swiftness of the greyhound, or by the sagacity of the spaniel, or by the docility of the shepherd’s dog. The effects of those different geniuses and talents, for want of the power or disposition to barter and exchange, cannot be brought into a common stock, and do not in the least contribute to the better accommodation ind conveniency of the species. Each animal is still obliged to support and defend itself, separately and independently, and derives no sort of advantage from that variety of talents with which nature has distinguished its fellows. 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.
Chapter 3
That the Division of Labour is limited by the Extent of the Market
AS it is the power of exchanging that gives occasion to the division of labour, so the extent of this division must always be limited by the extent of that power, or, in other words, by the extent of the market. When the market is very small, no person can have any encouragement to dedicate himself entirely to one employment, for want of the power to exchange all that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men’s labour as he has occasion for.
There are some sorts of industry, even of the lowest kind, which can be carried on nowhere but in a great town. A porter, for example, can find employment and subsistence in no other place. A village is by much too narrow a sphere for him; even an ordinary market town is scarce large enough to afford him constant occupation. In the lone houses and very small villages which are scattered about in so desert a country as the Highlands of Scotland, every farmer must be butcher, baker and brewer for his own family. In such situations we can scarce expect to find even a smith, a carpenter, or a mason, within less than twenty miles of another of the same trade. The scattered families that live at eight or ten miles distance from the nearest of them must learn to perform themselves a great number of little pieces of work, for which, in more populous countries, they would call in the assistance of those workmen. Country workmen are almost everywhere obliged to apply themselves to all the different branches of industry that have so much affinity to one another as to be employed about the same sort of materials. A country carpenter deals in every sort of work that is made of wood: a country smith in every sort of work that is made of iron. The former is not only a carpenter, but a joiner, a cabinet-maker, and even a carver in wood, as well as a wheel-wright, a plough-wright, a cart and waggon maker. The employments of the latter are still more various. It is impossible there should be such a trade as even that of a nailer in the remote and inland parts of the Highlands of Scotland. Such a workman at the rate of a thousand nails a day, and three hundred working days in the year, will make three hundred thousand nails in the year. But in such a situation it would be impossible to dispose of one thousand, that is, of one day’s work in the year.
As by means of water-carriage a more extensive market is opened to every sort of industry than what land-carriage alone can afford it, so it is upon the sea-coast, and along the banks of navigable rivers, that industry of every kind naturally begins to subdivide and improve itself, and it is frequently not till a long time after that those improvements extend themselves to the inland parts of the country. A broad- wheeled waggon, attended by two men, and drawn by eight horses, in about six weeks’ time carries and brings back between London and Edinburgh near four ton weight of goods. In about the same time a ship navigated by six or eight men, and sailing between the ports of London and Leith, frequently carries and brings back two hundred ton weight of goods. Six or eight men, therefore, by the help of water-carriage, can carry and bring back in the same time the same quantity of goods between London and Edinburgh, as fifty broad-wheeled waggons, attended by a hundred men, and drawn by four hundred horses. Upon two hundred tons of goods, therefore, carried by the cheapest land-carriage from London to Edinburgh, there must be charged the maintenance of a hundred men for three weeks, and both the maintenance, and, what is nearly equal to the maintenance, the wear and tear of four hundred horses as well as of fifty great waggons. Whereas, upon the same quantity of goods carried by water, there is to be charged only the maintenance of six or eight men, and the wear and tear of a ship of two hundred tons burden, together with the value of the superior risk, or the difference of the insurance between land and water-carriage. Were there no other communication between those two places, therefore, but by land-carriage, as no goods could be transported from the one to the other, except such whose price was very considerable in proportion to their weight, they could carry on but a small part of that commerce which at present subsists between them, and consequently could give but a small part of that encouragement which they at present mutually afford to each other’s industry. There could be little or no commerce of any kind between the distant parts of the world. What goods could bear the expense of land-carriage between London and Calcutta? Or if there were any so precious as to be able to support this expense, with what safety could they be transported through the territories of so many barbarous nations? two cities, however, at present carry on a very considerable commerce with each other, and by mutually affording a market, give a good deal of encouragement to each other’s industry.
Since such, therefore, are the advantages of water-carriage, it is natural that the first improvements of art and industry should be made where this conveniency opens the whole world for a market to the produce of every sort of labour, and that they should always be much later in extending themselves into the inland parts of the country. The inland parts of the country can for a long time have no other market for the greater part of their goods, but the country which lies round about them, and separates them from the sea-coast, and the great navigable rivers. The extent of their market, therefore, must for a long time be in proportion to the riches and populousness of that country, and consequently their improvement must always be posterior to the improvement of that country. In our North American colonies the plantations have constantly followed either the sea-coast or the banks of the navigable rivers, and have scarce anywhere extended themselves to any considerable distance from both.
The nations that, according to the best authenticated history, appear to have been first civilised, were those that dwelt round the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. That sea, by far the greatest inlet that is known in the world, having no tides, nor consequently any waves except such as are caused by the wind only, was, by the smoothness of its surface, as well as by the multitude of its islands, and the proximity of its neighbouring shores, extremely favourable to the infant navigation of the world; when, from their ignorance of the compass, men were afraid to quit the view of the coast, and from the imperfection of the art of shipbuilding, to abandon themselves to the boisterous waves of the ocean. To pass beyond the pillars of Hercules, that is, to sail out of the Straits of Gibraltar, was, in the ancient world, long considered as a most wonderful and dangerous exploit of navigation. It was late before even the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, the most skilful navigators and ship-builders of those old times, attempted it, and they were for a long time the only nations that did attempt it.
Of all the countries on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, Egypt seems to have been the first in which either agriculture or manufactures were cultivated and improved to any considerable degree. Upper Egypt extends itself nowhere above a few miles from the Nile, and in Lower Egypt that great river breaks itself into many different canals, which, with the assistance of a little art, seem to have afforded a communication by water-carriage, not only between all the great towns, but between all the considerable villages, and even to many farmhouses in the country; nearly in the same manner as the Rhine and the Maas do in Holland at present. The extent and easiness of this inland navigation was probably one of the principal causes of the early improvement of Egypt.
The improvements in agriculture and manufactures seem likewise to have been of very great antiquity in the provinces of Bengal, in the East Indies, and in some of the eastern provinces of China; though the great extent of this antiquity is not authenticated by any histories of whose authority we, in this part of the world, are well assured. In Bengal the Ganges and several other great rivers form a great number of navigable canals in the same manner as the Nile does in Egypt. In the Eastern provinces of China too, several great rivers form, by their different branches, a multitude of canals, and by communicating with one another afford an inland navigation much more extensive than that either of the Nile or the Ganges, or perhaps than both of them put together. It is remarkable that neither the ancient Egyptians, nor the Indians, nor the Chinese, encouraged foreign commerce, but seem all to have derived their great opulence from this inland navigation.
All the inland parts of Africa, and all that part of Asia which lies any considerable way north of the Euxine and Caspian seas, the ancient Scythia, the modern Tartary and Siberia, seem in all ages of the world to have been in the same barbarous and uncivilised state in which we find them at present. The Sea of Tartary is the frozen ocean which admits of no navigation, and though some of the greatest rivers in the world run through that country, they are at too great a distance from one another to carry commerce and communication through the greater part of it.
The first part of the article deals with the fact that man ultimately acts out of self-interest and self-love no matter what it may seem at quick glance. One’s owns self is always number one when it comes down to it which is why it is the best way to persuade another to gain what your seek. By working your words in a way that ensures only great benefits will come to the person you want to trade with, he will not be able to find a good reason not to accept this trade agreement. Although it is not the best characteristic of mankind, people are unlikely to engage in behavior that offers them no benefit, especially if it helps a fellow person get ahead while leaving the other individual with no gains. Therefore, appeal to another’s desires, and beneficial trade to both is likely to take place.
Man must be willing as well to work with others and help fellow humans out because in society it is impossible to function completely in solitary. For instance, some people have an easier time acquiring basic needs of life and therefore it is more beneficial to gain these needs from people to whom it is readily available to while you supply what is more readily available to you which decreases opportunity costs and lends itself to higher productivity.
Adam Smith also makes a good point that at one time we were all very similar until we grew up and went our separate directions in professions and walks of life. We all require the same basic necessities and it is when we enter certain careers is where we are able to grow and develop certain traits that another may not exercise in there career choice. Therefore, if there is ever a shortage of some profession you would think we could fill that position by someone who can channel their traits in another direction than they are currently.
The extent as to which we can exercise our talents is definitely limited to where we are located. Certain areas have no use for specific jobs that may be unique to some locations such as sheepherders while other jobs such as construction workers and janitors are needed in a wide variety of areas. Just because something is of great use in one place does not mean it is universal which makes division of labor so important so we are only excelling in areas that are most beneficial to the specific settings. Although there are these boundaries, improvements in transportation have helped create a world market where certain luxuries can be enjoyed worldwide. Like the article states, water transportation allowed for quicker and cheaper transport and access to anywhere, which helps create a wider market. Despite this, Smith makes a good point why even areas with water are underdeveloped and unable to expand, which makes a point that even in the people in that area are extremely crafted, they may still be limited by physical boundaries that are often difficult, even impossible to overcome.
The article makes many points that are definitely visible in society and true to how people interact with each other. I felt however that the beginning of the article was much different than the end but that could have been because only certain chapters were selected. It would have been interesting to see how he built upon chapters and tied it all together.
45 minutes in my house
In the first part of the article Adam Smith discusses how economy is formed by people who have the ability to efficiently create some good or service that is in demand can use that to get things that they need from others. He says that this is how successful economies are made. When people do not have the luxury of time they are forced to do all the different tasks that other people hire people to do for them. This means that they are not able to create a surplus like other people and must make do with a little of all the different things that are necessary.
The next part focuses on how goods and ideas spread. Smith speaks about how when only land routes were available there was a very limited way to spread goods. Once water routes became available goods could be traded over vast areas opening up a whole new world of ideas and letting more people have access to necessary goods.
This is how a free market economy can be created and how goods of all kinds can become available to consumers.
Society has always functioned on the few basic principles Smith offers to us through these chapters. His focus on competition will always be relevant in any profit based decision and man will always act for self gain. He mentions the channels which run through ancient towns and cities, acting as a means of transportation and communication for both ideas and goods. For us, this represents our modern means to, essentially, complete the same tasks. Today we use technology such as phones and the internet in the same ways they used the waterways. We market our products to the community around us, and to those in need of what we are selling. Trade, for either money or other products, creates the economy we know today. Everyone falls into a niche, offering to the public what they make best. As humans, this is how we function, society was meant to be this way; little interference is needed.
Smith uses Aristotle’s distinction between animals and humans, which is the ability of reason and speech, to further his argument of nature versus nurture. Smith reasons that animals run on desires; therefore, humanity’s ability to trade is because of reason. This is the opposite of Mandeville’s argument that humans trade solely because of desires. Man’s dependent nature forces cooperation, but does not require benevolance, rather it encourages self-interest. Smith says that humans are different because of the nurturing of different talents that create what each individual will succeed at. Unlike animals, humans of ‘dissimilar geniuses’ or different workforces are useful to each other. These divisions of labor are affected by the differences in markets. A town with a bigger market is more desirable because an individual can focus on one area of trade as opposed to a farmer in a village who must perform multiple tasks for less surplus. Therefore, geography enables trade, which includes the benefits of a town located on the water. The more trade that occurs, the more communication happens, which results in progress. Smith speaks only of ancient times of trade where water and land were the two main forms of trade. In today’s age of technology, the Internet is a huge progression that enables quick trade and communication. This helps the market because trade becomes a global network.
30 min in my dorm room
What I found to be the most important in this reading, which I did not see in Mandeville or Aristotle’s writings, was the beginning of an understanding of comparative advantage. As Smith states, everyone has their own geniuses or gifts which enable them to produce goods with less resources(time, effort, materials) than others and encourage them to specialize in the production of those goods. Division of labor further increases this comparative advantage, because everyone gets better at what they specialize in. Eventually, everyone’s specialization in their field of comparative advantage allows society to produce much more wealth. This is an important reason behind why division of labor and international trade increase wealth worldwide. It might also be the reason why the Pacific society mentioned in class is not wealthy.
Like Mandeville, Adam Smith recognizes self interest as being the primary motivator behind economic behavior. However, Smith does not paint nearly as bleak a picture as Mandeville. Smith does not depict self interest as motivated by greed and avarice. Instead, he simply depicts it as a positive force which unites and organizes everyone in society for the good of all.
It took me 45 minutes to read this in my dorm room.
Smith begins by describing people’s “self-love”, saying that man looks out for his own interests. It’s a system where if you give him what he wants, you in turn will be rewarded with what you want. He continues with the example of a tribe, which I found very interesting, saying that if people in the tribe pick an occupation and become skillful in a certain field, they can use their skill as a means of trade for goods they would have had to make or find themselves. He describes a working economy, pointing out that men want to trade and by having individual skills it allows an economy to thrive. He points out the geography enables trade, saying that larger towns, especially on the water, have many more advantages and better economies than small farm towns where people must perform multiple tasks instead of specializing solely in own area.
His description of the differences between a common street porter and a philosopher show the structure of society in a way that everyone is essentially on the same level the first years of life, but once they are introduced to certain occupations, their talents grow in different directions, making the philosopher much more successful than the street porter. Smith says that without the process of trade or barter, men would have the same duties and there would be no difference of employment between them. Overall, I enjoyed Smith’s ideas about man having a specific occupation and that making the market successful.
Smith convincingly argues that if individuals pursue their own self-interests they will benefit their brethren. Also, he states that by trading with one another, individuals can accomplish more and are better off. He contends that trade facilitates specialization and results in a more diversified, efficient economy because every one can focus on what he is most talented at. His idea that trade and general wealth are more apparent in large towns near the water is not a very surprising idea. He chooses not to mention, though, that the disparity in terms of wealth, is also much greater in cites than in rural areas. Civilization, says Smith, is the result of trade and specialization and therefore, the areas that continue to interact with one another and develop a robust economy are the nations that are most civilized. Isolated, barbarous areas are the ones where no interactions have occurred.
45 mins, dorm room
Smith touches on numerous valid points that essentially provide the reader with coherent ways to create a functional and successful economy. The part of the article that I found most intriguing was the section on time management and maximizing profits. The example that the article provides about the arrow maker made perfect sense. The article claimed that an arrow maker would trade his arrows to the hunter because he can receive more food and profits that if he were to use his own arrows to hunt and provide his own food. Therefore, people within a society use trade to maximize profits within the economy. Although this example seems dated, our modern society can directly relate to this example considering the only differences are the time period, types of jobs, and exchange of money instead of goods.
Another interesting idea that smith touched upon built from this last example, where an economy consists of a diverse skill set. Even though people significantly differ in skill sets and wages, each person contributes in some way to creating a financially stable economy. This proves true even in today’s society; for example, without crime or there would be no need for the police or lawyers. Besides how economies work, Smith mentions that all humans consistently display self-interests, and always put themselves before others. Overall, I enjoyed reading Smith’s article about the invisible hand, and found myself intrigued by his multiple examples.
1 hr to read and write
Dorm room
In this article Adam Smith first discusses how no man is independent, that in order to function in society, he needs the assistance of his fellow citizens. Smith discusses the principle of “give me what I want and you shall have this which you want”. He reveals his belief that all of man is in fact selfish. He looks out for himself only and in every trade or treaty, he attempts to get as much out of it for himself while giving the least amount possible.
Smith also discusses the division of labor, how it does not come from nature but rather from habit, custom, and education. Essentially, everyone is the same when they are born. It is not until later that man becomes a master in a specific profession through schooling. It is this division of labor that allows everyone to benefit from one another.
He also goes on to say that the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. Some sorts of industry can only exist in a great city and he compares these professions to those in more scattered areas where one man is in charge of and performs a variety of tasks due to the limited number in population. Location is also important as well, as water allows for greater industry as it provides an easier form of transportation in masses.
I thought this article was very straight forward and in my opinion made a lot of sense.
45 min
Dorm
In first part of this article, Smith makes points regarding man and how his talents affect his brethren. Man automatically expects help from his people, but sometimes they need something in return. This is where different talents come into play. Bargaining is the best way to obtain things you want. Smith wants us to see that for the beginning of their lives, everyone is generally the same person. It is not until their developmental years that their talents become distinguished from one another, and certain people excel in certain fields. Once man discovers his talent, he strives to perfect it. Each man’s talent is of use to everyone.
Smith also tells us how location plays a part in determining mans abilities. If a family lives 10 miles away from the next, they will learn to harness the lacking talents of the area and perfect them. This makes up a very smart civilization.
45 minutes, dorm room
This article by Adam Smith focused on the division of labor and the necessity of water for civilization. Smith states that at some point, everyone did everything. There were no skilled laborers or specialists. However, different people began to recognize their different talents and started to work with them. In that way jobs such as masons, tanners, farmers, etc were created. Each practiced his profession and traded with others for their goods and services that they specialize in. In small towns, there was still a division of labor but the more remote an area became, the less divided the labor was. This is because in smaller communities, the specialized labor would not all be used and the lone person could do for himself what is necessary.
Smith also focused on the importance of water for development and trade of a community. The earliest civilizations were found along water ways because it is easier and cheaper to grow and transport goods this way. Seas such as the Mediterranean are especially good for trade because of their relative stillness and the always constant close proximity to land. In the past, almost all civilizations made their homes along riverbanks or seas to take advantage of easy living and trade.
45 minutes in dorm
The first part of the article manages to differentiate between humans and other animals; claiming that humans ability to communicate sets them apart and allows humans to set up a form of an economy. He claims that through education people began to occupy different professions which created the need of trade and the development of an economy. Smith claims this only works because people are able to convince others to perform their wishes by promoting their self-interests. The article also notes how important of a role water played in creating the first early trading. Nearly all early centers of trade were founded along water-ways that allowed for ease of travel from one city to the next. Smith makes his arguments very easy to interpret and easy to read as well. His ideas for the most part also make sense upon initial interpretation.
Smith spends the first portion of his article comparing humans and their interdependency to the way other species of animal interact. He comments on the fact that no other species uses one another for personal gain or has learned to “truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.” Smith discusses how professions came to be; how as humans learned that they were more skilled than others at certain tasks, they could trade their goods or services for what ever it was that they desired. An economy is formed when people living in a society together begin to trade and barter either goods or services and continue this cycle in a effort to meet their personal wants and needs. The second half of the article focuses on how societies become wealthy. Smith points out the direct relationship between a society’s distance to a navigable river or ocean and the wealth that nation has the opportunity to amass. He states that the Egyptians with the Nile, the Mediterranean nations with their great sea, and the inner European countries with their complex river systems, all developed great wealth and influence in the world through their access to water. Smith also points out how those living in the inner regions of a country, those regions without access to navigable waters, almost always lag behind other cities and do not create nearly the sort of booming economies as cities on the coasts. Another of Smith’s points regarding the importance of water is that the amount of cargo that can be shipped on water and the amount of money and man-power required for it is exponentially more than could be carried on land. The ease for transportation of goods and services by water is a key factor that contributes to the wealth of coastal cities and nations.
45 minutes, my dorm
This article branches out in a few rather distinct areas that attempt to explain his reasoning for the divisions of labor. Smith begins with the idea that in the Animal Kingdom two animals do not trade. At least, not with the distinct idea which us humans have about trade where the products are bartered and the worth is estimated and agreed upon by the two parties. Smith is pointing out the distinction by saying that the only species which partakes in this is humans. And within the Human race the division of labor occurs. For though depending on the living situation (rural vs. urban) people can be inclined to do many things or specialize in one art. If the people live so far away from each other, each person must learn to do all of the basic things that are necessary for life and they cannot rely upon any others to do the job because the others are usually too far away to be any good. But if one is living in a great group of people like a city or a tribe then one person can specialize in making the bows, and someone else can specialize in butchering the venison, etc. In this larger group of people there is a specialization of labor which deepens with age depending on certain traits that people have (i.e. The Philosopher and The Porter). Smith’s final point was that trade over water is more cost effective than trade over land and it helped the spread of cultures and was developed in the lovely Mediterranean.
45 min Dorm
2 hours in my dorm this morning
I agree with the essence of Smith’s argument: that humans are naturally drawn to trade (“trade” meaning any sort of tit for tat arrangement) and such is the basis of all human interaction and progress. However, I disagree with the notion that only humans have this drive; indeed, multitudes of animals cooperate, whether intraspecifically or interspecifically. Packs of dolphins, wolves, and lions prove that mutual beneficence among animals is not only a possibility but a necessity in the animal world. Of course one might argue that this cooperation is genetically/instinctively programmed, but Smith’s use of the word “propensity” suggests he believes the same to be true of humans.
However, Smith divides humans from the rest of the animal world, citing the human tendency to reason. But what about a mutualistic symbiosis? Take, for example, the species of fish that clean the teeth of whales. The whales get clean teeth and the fish get protection. Whether consciously reasoned or not, this behavior is doubtlessly a propensity, not unlike that of human nature.
I also disagree with the suggestion that EVERY interaction is out of redirecting another’s self-love in a way that satisfies our own. Take the bond between any mother and child of any species in the world. Once again, one may argue that a mother saving her child ultimately makes her happy so, in a way, there is inherent self-love. I therefore question whether Smith believes this self-love to be a product of instinct or a product of reason. If the latter is true, then it is obvious that there are indeed matters where a human may act 100% in the interest of another. The mother whose adrenaline surge allows her to lift a car off her child is such an automatic phenomenon that I am certain humans can act regardless of self-love (even if such actions aren’t intentional).
In the same way that all separately independent humans create an interdependent market, I am certain that all independent animals actually need each other–otherwise, the entire science behind environments, ecosystems, niches, biological communities, etc. would be moot.
As Kristen mentioned, the latter half of the reading seemed vastly different from the former. Admittedly, I got lost a few times reading the third chapter. The main point I derived is that the division of labor is defined by the extent of the market and the extent of the market guarantees the division of labor. Smith makes the point that we all grow up the same until a certain point at which we grow apart. Whereas many would attribute this to nurture, Smith says this is an undeniable nature. The economy is like a balloon, and when one part is squeezed the opposite part expands. Such is why humans travel different paths–as one is closed, others are made available. This typifies the continuous and constant ebb and flow of the free market and of human nature in general, all of which brings us back to one main point: humans are inherently drawn to trade, which simultaneously catalyzes the cooperation and competition vital to squeezing the economic balloon in whichever way needed at any given moment.
This is like the Platonic form of a comment! Yea! Great job!
Dr. Jennifer Baker College of Charleston
________________________________