Francois Quesnay (1694- 1774) French economist who founded the school of Physiocrats and greatly influenced Adam Smith.

Unlike people who are motivated by the urge for riches or title, the entrepreneur prefers instead to found a dynasty. In later times, Adam Smith, by thoroughly describing and explaining the market system, became the father of modern economics. If the Worker is not to bear some or all of the burden of their incomes, the burden would fall back on pensions funded by the State. Wealth of Nations appeared in England just as the Industrial Revolution was beginning, a fact unknown to Adam Smith and the capitalistic class of his day.Labor power was to Marx a fact of nature to be integrated in his faulty edifice of Hegelian inspired metaphysics-rubbish. Update: A little breezy, but so far it is interesting to read that Adam Smith was a lot brighter than his latter day followers. Workers, he predicted, would, in time, receive full remuneration for their toil while owners will derive value equivalent only to the resources they contributed. Among a host of topics, it discusses the origin and use of money, apprenticeship, statistics, waste, the military, foreign trade, landlords, the clergy, royalty, farming, and "the late disturbances in the American colonies.

There is the briefest mention of Milton the Monster – no more than a dig at the fact that his radical free market views weren’t exactly what he won his Nobel Prize for – but given this has become the new orthodoxy you might expect more space dedicated to this theme here. This chapter conveys a concern that today’s increasingly “scientific” economics may overlook fundamental social and political issues that are central to economics.His treatment of Mill is good, never someone I would have otherwise considered a great political philosopher, but I changed my mind. The Renaissance (1350-1600) — the era which saw the decay of a restrictive religious spirit in favor of a spirit of skepticism and inquiry.

In a way, the game hasn't finished yet, but nobody is trying to predict the outcome, Butterfly or Moth.Yet the grasping aristocracy, who considered the poor a necessary segment of a stable society, opposed any suggestion of a more equitable distribution of wealth. Team Marx appears to have been irreparably damaged by the failure of attempts to do without Caterpillarists in Communist economies and the complacency of the Workers who are doing alright. Smith answers that the individual, in the process of providing for personal interests, unintentionally contributes to the economic wellbeing of society. Thus, the question seems to be not whether profits need to be generated, but who is entitled to them. The Victorian world a ragbag of Alfred Marshall, Francis Edgeworth, Frederic Bastiat, Henry George and John Hobson, here I think purely to transition in forty pages from Marx to Veblen.