Is there a version a non abridged version of this book?

>>8397092
The reason nobody bothers with the unabridged version is because it's fucking 1,000 pages long, I think it's just about on par with the KJV bible in total length. The man goes on several digressions that last anywhere from 10 to 70 pages. While a lot of books are abridged for the sake of the plebs, this one is abridged for everyone's sake.

There are maybe 300 of those pages that are worth reading. Also Smith is a retard and peddles the same shit advice that modern economics tries to sell you on. Like he says that America shouldn't bother developing industry and should just focus on natural resource extraction, comparative advantage style. Cause that works so well for all of the banana republics lmao.

>>8397458
Has anything but state-sponsored developmental economics ever actually lifted a nation to economic might? All the major economic powers had government support in their earliest days of development. Even Britain, the great champion of free markets, had government support for its early textile and iron industries.

>>8397477
Absolutely not. Name one industry and I will explain how government sponsored its development. The idea that there can be such a thing as a market without monopolies within a state structure where the use of force is monopolized is preposterous.

'Free Market' economics are tartuffery of the highest order. The USA is presented as an ideological champion of the market when basically every aspect of modern American life is funded through government support. The internet, the interstate system, the aerospace industry, biotech, ect.

There was a wonderful discussion posted here yesterday between the former Greek finance minister and Chomsky that touched on this. I actually ordered his book based on this. I just wish that we could disentangle smart economics from the ideological baggage that it comes with in most left wing parties in the west. It's incredible to me how ostensibly smart socialists can quite easily identify capitalist ideology at work while shouting REFUGEES WELCOME, WE ARE ALL THE SAME, CELEBRATE DIVERSITY as their sisters are raped by savages who have invaded their homelands. Savages which their governments refuse to govern, while they spend millions of euros setting up anti-rightwing trollbusting taskforces that send people to jail for being meanie faces and hurting peoples' feelings on twitter.

>>8397458
>New England didnt have a comparative advantage in Industry compared to the south and a lot of the rest of the world
>Not very much arable land
>Education infrastructure and relatively well educated populace
>Some waterways for transport etc
>High transport costs for imports

The major problem with the banana republics were the dreadful (extractions) institutions left by the Spanish. America by contrast had a better functioning democracy with checks and balances and enforced private property rights etc

Also
>Implying tariffs don't harm the poor man who spends more of his income on imports and helps the businessman who benefits from higher prices.

>>8397511
>Government provision of public goods such as roads is incompatible with free markets.


I didn't realise that the government made Google, Facebook, 4chan AND pornhub. What is the point of the internet if there aren't any good sites to use?
There's nothing wrong with government funded research but to say the government is the only factor in making the internet what it is today would be wrong.

>>8397477
no, too many collective action problems
free markets are short-sighted

>>8397458
>There are maybe 300 of those pages that are worth reading. Also Smith is a retard and peddles the same shit advice that modern economics tries to sell you on. Like he says that America shouldn't bother developing industry and should just focus on natural resource extraction, comparative advantage style. Cause that works so well for all of the banana republics lmao.

No, Smith is very nuanced and you should read the whole unabridged work to realize the myth of Smith that try to craft is totally false. He only used the "invisible hand" analogy only once in passing... in a lot of ways he had proto-institutionalist tendencies, especially in book 5.

He used a labour theory of value (inconsistently) to analysis capitalist development so he full well understood the importance of manufacturing in comparison to mere raw material extraction. Smith understood master manufacturers were coming to receive an income which was related not to their personal efforts but to the size of their capital... this income was derived from the value which the wage-labour employed by the capital added to the raw materials which it worked up. Smith observing the growing dominance of the capital-labour relationship in this sphere grouped the profit on agricultural and commercial capital with that on industrial capital as different species of the same new genus.

>>8397538
wtf are you talking about, the wealth of nations was published in 1776, no one knew how America was going to develop. And tariffs were central to the early American system of political economy which was mercantilist and driven by infrastructure based development.

>>8397549
I am not saying that private interests do not create marketable products, I am saying that the markets are not, never have been, and by nature of the existence of the state cannot be 'free', and that the necessary conditions for having developed most of the 'free market innovations' of history have been created by states, particularly in the process of their competition with one another.

>>8397573
He argued that nowhere in America had a comparative advantage in Industry.
I would like to add to my point that New England also had a low population density at that time and labour was scarce, which provides an incentive for companies to develop more productive ways and means of doing things, I.e industrialise.

Infrastructure is something very important to development and tends to fall under the public good category so I wouldn't expect markets to take centre stage there.

>>8397576
Free markets to me generally means low barriers to entry and all externalities accounted for amongst other things. To claim that these would be able to exist without a state would be something only a silly ancap could suggest. The state is needed to protect private property rights and provide the foundation for markets to excel, by proving public goods (including scientific research) etc and act as a referee. This role for the state I do not consider incomparable with a general free market outlook of the world. It's not a matter of all markets being free ( they shouldn't all be ) but which markets ought to be free and which for various large market failures require the government to attempt to improve the situation through regulation.

>>8397092
The pic you posted is unabridged. It's the one I have it's by Wordsworth

>>8397477
Just as sacking your neighbours city might make you richer from the loot but make the whole world poorer, beggar-thy-neighbour is no way to conduct international trade.

>>8397092
Modern Library version. Can confirm because it's the version I own.

https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Modern-Library/dp/0679424733/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1471226201&sr=8-1&keywords=modern+library+wealth+of+nations

It is brutally long and only some parts are worth reading, but I would say it's worth it just to rebuke conservatives who've never read Smith yet have been told to love him

>>8398099
>>8397632

Thanks