Adam Smith: An economist dream and vision and Jonathan Swift: The cannibal of Cork
Opulence is the wealth we obtain through the ownership of our possessions and valuable resources and how we strive to keep control of such assets. In book three of Adam Smith economic dictionary, Wealth of nations he explains how the opulence of a town can affect and help develop an entire nation. I feel this is the basis for any national economy and proves how modern Adam Smith’s concepts of economics were to today’s civilized western society.
Adam Smith believed that the inhabitants of the town and those of the entire country carry upon the great commerce of every civilized nation’s wealth and fortune. It is the country that will provide the substance and the material of manufactured resources needed to help provide the product back for the country. I feel that this is the basis for today’s modern society because the wealth and fortune of every country is dependant on the goods and services we provide in order to make a profit not just for ourselves as individuals, but also for the country as a whole.
However, in a town where the produce is not reproduced on a mass scale, the produce benefits the town alone and leaves the country at a loss. This could cause conflict though as the manufactures and proprietors of the produce and land may be reluctant to share and sell his produce due to unwanted competition or rivalry.
Smith goes on to explain how the country will “buy great quantities of manufactured goods from the town through a much smaller quantity of staff.” This is compared to the vast number of people who have helped in mass-producing the product for the town to sell. A production surplus may occur where a product has been mass-produced and will then be traded for what is in demand. This will work better in more populated areas where there will be more manufactures with a greater number of goods to sell and trade. It expresses his view on the hidden hand of the market where Smith thinks that each people who trades will be give a specialist skill for what they will then sell.
This would base the foundations for the industrial revolution, where the mass manufactured Northern towns, such as Manchester thrived through the selling and trading of goods and services, and became known as “boom towns.”
However, Smith agrees that it is more beneficial and financially stable for a producer to strive beyond the needs of substance and act upon mans natural inclinations to sell their product through “foreign trade.” This will thwart any chance of rivalry and sabotage through human intervention and to promote the produce to foreign soil. This has worked to this very day with the exporting and importing of goods helping to maintain the financial stability of the sovereign state and of its inhabitants.
He uses the fall of the Roman Empire as an example of how possible the most civilised society in the history of western civilisation through conflict and battle caused the complete shutdown of commerce between the towns and the country. It also explains how the corruption of the chiefs and leaders of obtaining land due to the lack of proprietors and landowners. (Machiavelli/Locke “Life, Liberty and Property).
This led to the succession of land through alienation or through the primogeniture law of succession. It shows how the progression of the law of primogeniture was not just used just in the right of land ownership, but in the succession of the royal family and within the business world. If it was not for the law of primogeniture than the succession of landlords would have stayed in effect, which in Roman times could cause warfare, due to the landlord’s discretion against his neighbours and even the roman sovereignty.
Smith explanations of this I feel shows how beneficial the Roman Empire was to helping establish and build the modern western society we live in today, even though some of the laws they established were unknown to them. However, I also feel that the Roman Empire also shows how the ruling of the landlords and the sovereignty towards their Servile (slaves/workers) expresses Smith’s opinion of how government can do greater harm than good. This is reflected in the eventual fall of the empire.
Man’s main way of living and surviving is through his property and main source of income, his land. The land he owns will lay the foundations for the manufactured produce he will try to sell, in order to maintain the income needed to maximize profit and pleasure and avoid pain.
Smith explains though how it would be hard to maintain and keep ownership of land and that through taxation and created the opportunity for free trade. Smith believed in morality an was in favour of free trade as it helped establish the links between countries and gave us some of the products that we take for granted. For example without free trade we would not of been able to of obtained the cocoa beans or the cotton from the plantations in the West Indies, which are vital for some of the necessities that we need to this very day. This I feel is vital as it is proven that a country that allows free trade is wealthier than a country that has government dictation from selling e.g. Zimbabwe “hyper-inflation.
A country without these three things is a country that will crumble from within and will enter into economic and financial meltdown. Adam Smith explains how firstly a country with a “great and ready market for the rude produce of the country will improve not only the financial stability of the country, but the facilities and resources needed for production. Secondly, the wealth acquired by the inhabitants of cities will help purchase the land left uncultivated and I feel this helps not just improve land, but also the jobs prospects and unemployment levels of a county. Thirdly it introduces good government and secures the liberty and security of the inhabitants of the country. It mentions Hume as the only person who taken notice upon the great affect that free liberty can have in projecting good government and freedom for the entire population.
When you look at Adam Smith’s view on Opulence and trade, you can see a very modern approach to economics and business, which has been ignored by the whole of western society. This is expressed in the banking crisis and rising debts that have seen some countries having to be bailed out.
This moves me onto the second topic of my seminar paper and the solution of the Irish people in the 18th century in Jonathan Swift’s, A Modest Proposal. By 1729 the Irish nation was rife in poverty and that women were begging on the street for money, but were followed by the masses of their children. Swift expresses his views that they re living off the states and have no means for working for an honest livelihood.
The proposal comes from two views: The views of Swift and the Views of the proposer. The initial proposal is the barbaric slaughter of children in Ireland, once they have had their First birthday and the meat will then be used as produce to sell and be consumed by The Irish population. I initially thought why would anyone ever think of resorting to cannibalism and selling their children like lambs to the slaughter in the needs of surviving and maintaining the financial stability of the Irish population. This is probably because I am quarter Irish and I would not of liked the prospect of being fattened up for the purpose of being killed and then consumed.
Swift expresses the extent of Ireland debt, which stood at £2 million and proposed that the slaughter and sale of 100,000 carcasses to the richest and wealthiest of the burghers and nobleman would help decrease the extent of Ireland debt and protect the sovereignty. At the same time his proposers is suggest leaving a further 20,000 to be brought up and used for breeding to continue the trade and to use the meat as an alternative source of food.
I feel this expresses the traditional medieval economic view of mercantilism where under state rule; the inhabitants will make money for the state. This expresses that due to severity of Ireland’s debt, it is the duty of the parents to breed children for sale and consumption in order to help recover the financial stability of the sovereignty, as well as the health of the Irish population. This is done In order to make the state strong again.
I can understand the proposal, as it is vital to ensure that a country financial and economic stability is secure and that it expresses the need for the trade of goods and services of the towns that will help finance the commerce of the country. Adam Smith believed that trade promotes peace, civility, and toleration, but how can you suggest that the mass slaughter of young children to be used as meat to be sold is peaceful and civil.
The proposer has backed up his proposal with financial proof expressing how the sales of each child would bring 10 shillings with 2 shillings needed for the upbringing of the child and then the remaining 8-shilling belonging to the family of the child, once they are sold and then slaughtered. I feel this could have developed into another civil war because of the basis of trade. If selling children for consumption became the main economic produce in Ireland, than each person and each individual family will be breeding in order to enrich themselves. However this could of caused uproar from both religious circles and jealousy from the older population who have become too old to give birth and may have resorted to stealing in order to maintain their livelihood and existence.
Throughout Swift’s satire is expressed through various anecdotes and views from his friends. He mentions a very worthy person who was a true lover of Ireland who feels many farmers would destroy their cattle and livestock if it meant they supplies meat through the process of breeding. He also expressed how his friend felt that men would treat their wife with the same respect and sense of pride, which would be compared to the pride they had for their livestock. If this is what he is suggesting then it is time to remove all mothers from their homes and let them graze on the fields and will be giving birth in the shed.
Swift also expresses that if his proposal if not carried out, then it may be that one nation (England) would take great pleasure in eating the entire Irish nation. I feel there is he trying to mock the English by suggesting that the Irish carry out the proposal before England take hold of the idea and continue their barbaric ways.
I feel that that Swifts proposal does reflect Adam Smith’s view that the opulence of a town can help develop an entire nation because initially if this concept was conceived then it would help generate a town produce and help establish and redevelop the Irish economy in the 18th century.
Looking at this from a modern aspect, the same situation is occurring over 300 years later with the Irish again in financial ruin with debts upwards of £70 billion. Could it be the case that the Irish follows the guidelines set out by The Modest Proposal and create mass cannibalism in Cork or to have all of the young children in Ireland sent to the abattoir for slaughter and then sell them in the local butchers. In these modern times, society would not accept this as we have morals and have developed others way of dealing with financial struggles.
Swift even concludes by admitting he has no personal interest in this venture, but feels that he has no other motive than to account upon the public interest of the Irish people. Again it promotes the mercantilism of state rule and that Swift must act upon the rule and benefit of the states wealthiest.
I generally feel that the proposal cannot be take seriously because I think it is not a serious economic proposal, but if you look at it from an historical aspect you can see the mercantilism themes it represents that during the economic age of the 18th century that “the people were the riches of the states” as expressed by economic author George Wittkowsky.
Overall I feel that when you look at Adam Smith, you see a very modern man whose ideas were revolutionary and helped base the foundations of the economic and financial world we live in today. Jonathan Swift, in contrast did not have the chance to base his ideas upon Smith’s work as it was just before his time. If he had been given the chance to of read Smith’s Wealth of Nations, then possibly his merchantilian modest proposal may have found a different way of solving the financial burden and reputation of the Irish, instead of resorting to having Sheamus O’Finnigan as the main course for Sunday Roast at the Lord mayor of Dublin.
No comments:
Post a Comment