Wealth Of Nations

Not really a rant or extreme opinion of any sort, but I just finished reading An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, the Father of Economics. No, I did not read the book just for the fun of it. I'm not that much of a nerd. I read it for a directed study class.

I had no idea what to expect going into the course, because I really didn't know anything about economics beyond what I "learned " in AP Macroeconomics (I didn't really learn much in that class. I would have failed if not for a few grade-booster tests at the end of the semester so that half of the class wouldn't fail). To be honest, I didn't even know who Adam Smith was going into the course. Economics never really interested me before.

I am interested now. I imagine after reading Wealth of Nations one will either be turned on to the study of economics (either to prove Smith wrong or to delve deeper into the new ideas Smith put forth to see how much they have held true over the past 200+ years), or be completely turned off by the study of economics.

The most surprising thing about his book (once I learned a bit about who Adam Smith was) is that he is not a supporter of laissez faire economics. There are quite a few sections in the book where Smith supports government regulation of business for this, that or the other reason. From what I understand, the general assumption is that Adam Smith is a 100% capitalist that would not approve of any regulations on business at all. That is not what he thinks at all. Certainly he thinks some of the market should be left alone, but he acknowledges human nature is naturally self-interested (which is different than selfish in Smith's vocabulary), and so it is necessary to make sure this self-interest won't hurt the Wealth of the Nation over all.

People have also made the assumption that Smith would support the rich businessman and disdain the laborer. That is not the impression I got at all while reading his book. At one point he even says that laborers are necessary for a business to work, and so they need to be treated decently. He says if the working class is not happy, then society will not be happy. It was like Marx read that bit and expanded on it. In fact, Marx did read Wealth of Nations. He simply thought Smith was too naive, for lack of a better term, in his views and took Smith's ideas about laborers to the extreme.

Now this is not to say Smith was without error in his idea about the economy. He was writing when a free market economy was in its early stages, and so he obviously could not know all the intricacies of how a free market would work (free market being a bit of a misnomer, since, as I stated earlier, he believes in some regulations). He set up a superb foundation for future scholars though, and if nothing else, any person interested in economics should read Wealth of Nations just to see what the "father" had to say on the matter. It is tedious, but worth the read. Actually, even if you aren't currently interested in economics, it's a good educational read regardless.

p.s. I did not include any quotes from the text, because that would require me looking them up. The book is 947 pages long. I am not going to reread the entire thing just to find relevant quotes. I already have to write a 15 page paper on the guy. No need to put any effort into this blog post as well. ... ;)

As a bit of a side note, I also had to read Theory of Moral Sentiments before reading Wealth of Nations. I do think reading Theory of Moral Sentiments before Wealth of Nations really helps to give a more complete picture of Smith, so one can see he is not as cold-hearted as Wealth of Nations might lead one to believe. Or maybe I just like Smith.

So I guess this was like a book review of sorts, except I didn't give a brief summary of what is in the book. Brief summary: economics. Enjoy.

Too humble musicians

Madison and Hamilton were able to spit out the Federalist papers (those long, extremely complicated pieces of work) one every few days or so, and I can’t even be bothered to write a simple blog once a month. I feel a bit pathetic.

So, it’s the last day of the month, and here I am with no topic to discuss (well, I wrote something up, but it needs lots of editing, and I don’t have the time for it now). Since I’m a slacker, I’m just gonna put up a blog post I had written a while ago, but didn’t post originally because I didn’t like it (ha. You’re getting my reject blog post. Bet that makes you feel special)

Here it is:

So last night on a forum [not actually last night, as I wrote this up a while ago], a guy posted a thread asking if any musicians were on the forum. If so, what instruments did they play, how long, what type of music, etc.

A few men replied saying they were musicians, and were like “I’ve been a beginner on the guitar since 1963, I'm still learning stuff and know there's so much more to learn.” When I read response after response saying stuff like that I grew rather peeved. At first I wasn’t sure why. I thought maybe it was the (false?) humility they were displaying, but then I realized it bugged me because it made me feel insignificant, like they were belittling me. I realize that was not their intent, but that is how it felt.

I am an actual beginner on guitar. I’ve been playing less than 2 years, I’m self taught and not highly motivated, so my skills are rather amateurish. Hearing a bunch of men who are obviously skilled on their instrument-of-choice by now, after playing for numerous years, say they are just beginners was like they were discounting anyone who is an actual beginner. If those men are beginners, what does that make us actual beginners? Where does that leave us?

That would be like a Sensai saying she is a white-belt. No. She is not a white belt. She is a blackbelt. White belts are beginners in karate. Black belts are not. Yes, we can all call ourselves students, because we are all continuously learning, but the title of beginner only goes to people who just began, hence the word “beginner.” Likewise, an advanced musician could say “I’m a student of music, always learning something new.” But they should not say “I’m a beginner.”

It’s also annoying to me when musicians try to downplay their skills. There is a difference between being humble and sounding ridiculous.

It may sound like simple semantics, but that is not how it feels to me.

I can add, after reading Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, that the “(false?) humility” is something that bugs me. Smith points out that we are more prone to like a person that is slightly too vain over a person that is slightly too humble. This is because we can at least admire the slightly vain person for striving towards excellence. We cannot admire the too humble person for underestimating the praise actually due them. Sometimes we may even scorn them because it makes us angry that they underestimate their true worth.

A person who has been playing an instrument for 20+ years is prone to be very good at that instrument, and to call themselves a “beginner” is simply too humble. It underestimates the praise they are truly due. It isn’t to be admired. Humility at the correct level is worth admiring (like the distinction I made between saying “I am still a student/still learning” over saying “I am still a beginner”), but a humility too extreme is not worth admiring and is off-putting.

[To avoid being hypocritical in my own post, I'm not a beginner on the guitar. I'm not a skilled guitar player, to be sure, but I am decent.]