>100 pages in to wealth of nations >100 pages of long winded

If you wanted to learn mathematics would you start with a book by Euler? Or any other dead and gone mathematician?

A similar idea can apply to Economics. Studying the history of economic thought is a very different thing of course.

Just know that the invisible hand was only mentioned once in the book so you can avoid having to bear the condescending glares of some pseudo economist dumb enough to think they can learn anything by read the entirety of the Wealth of Nations. You won't take anything else out of the book that you won't get from a modern textbook (infact that modern textbook will likely have less arguments that you will deem as untrue and pose more interesting questions).

If you're a blogger or something of the sort though, it's a must, it sounds savy af to name-drop the theories of old economists in a "Ah, let us draw from this ancient wisdom" kind of way (Smith isn't ancient but you know what I mean). Casuals lap that shit right up.

>>8823920
No. It's much too convoluted to make anything of it. Just read a textbook; or, if you're really interested, read an analysis of The Wealth of Nations.

>>8824051
Tl;dr, etc.

>>8823920
I just tried Capital by Picketty

Luckily it is in the format of a modern academic paper and you can get the entire gist of the book in the introduction, along with supported notes. Wealth of Nations is a slog and best read in a sourcebook or analysis.

>>8824051

I agree and have trolled viciously in this regard. I am only reading it to seem well read towards pseuds

>>8824064
But you could just lie and read the wikipedia article, and read 5 enjoyable books in the time youd need.