Compos Mentis

Wealth? Who needs it?

Let me begin with a warning: this is going to be another economics post. I won't mind if at this point you run away screaming. On the other hand, I probably will be done ranting against my economics professor by shredding his ideas philosophically behind his back after this one. Then I'll just be doing ordinary philosophical shredding of ideas I don't like.
Anyway, in economics we've been reading about Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations. First, though, let me tell you a little something about my professor. He seems to believe, despite the number one rule of economics (There is Scarcity) that we can create a society where everyone has enough to be happy and content. He is also a staunch supporter of the free-market school and is in love with Adam Smith for creating it. Now I've plenty of ways of refuting his views, but I thought it would be fun to do it on his terms, especially because he probably doesn't know I've read The Wealth of Nations.
I say let's set up a society where everyone plays by Adam Smith's rules. In this scenario, the majority of people have a job defined by the division of labor, which means, basically, that they are cogs in a giant machine. The assembly line concept is a perfect example of Smith's thought. This is the most efficient way of creating wealth. But would anyone trade such an existence for the increased goods it provides? All of the workers would be encouraged to become mindless machines, doing their jobs for the sake of their overall well being.
Do I sound like Karl Marx yet? This is the kind of atmosphere he was describing in the mid 1800's, with the rapid growth of the free market and, as a result, a vast increase in wealth. But people opposed it on humanitarian grounds, and today we have antitrust acts and welfare so that people have some stability among the vast and chaotic force of the rampant free market. Or so socialists say. I'm still an economic pragmatist. 8)
This line of thought, however, still has another philosophical consequence. Society today is still a goods based society, meaning that the more wealth (i.e. goods) one has, the higher status that person has. But as we have seen, having more wealth does not necessarily make a person happier or more content. In fact it was some of the people who got the most out of the industrial revolution that sanctioned better conditions for the poor, even if that meant that they would personally lose some wealth. Doesn' t this mean that there is something more out there beyond acquiring wealth?
Yeah, he's going down. Especially when I show him that Adam Smith agreed with me. He mentions in A Wealth of Nations that he favored compulsory basic education for everyone (a very liberal view in his day) because otherwise the humanity of the worker would be at stake. I knew he was smart.

posted by Emmett @ 13:01