Adam Smith and David Ricardo Had More Similarities Than Differences in Their Ideas

Contemporary economics are best explained by comparing two foundational thinkers that have contributed to the better understanding of liberalism, one being its proponent Adam Smith and the other being its most significant critic, Karl Marx. Both thinkers are profoundly important in locating and investigating the roots of neoliberalism as well as exploring alternatives ways to challenge neoliberal economics in the face of its post-cold war expansion as the inevitable and only alternative to redistribution and economic justice. This essay traces the emerging ideas of classical liberalism as articulated by Smith and their subsequent deployment in the debates that produced neoliberalism. In this context, Marx and Marxism are utilized to expose and deconstruct the shortcomings of both liberalism and neoliberalism and their limits in providing solutions to the structural symptoms of liberal and neoliberal capitalism.

Roberts does a fine job illustrating and convincing the reader that free trade is the way to be successful. For this reason, the reader will begin to side with Ricardo and his ideas, and agree with the things that he purposes. In turn, the reader will also view Frank Bates as the bad guy of sorts and disagree with the things that he is promoting. Roberts could have improved his argument by researching free trade even more, and including points such as social responsibility. While it is important to secure the well-being of our nation, we must also be aware of the world population and their quality of life.

David Ricardo agreed with both the ideas of Malthus and Smith. Ricardo strongly argued for free trade. The idea of “cooperative advantage” emerged. The simply says that a nation should produce only the goods it best produces, rather than it producing every necessity. Then the nation will be able to buy the good that it needs for cheaper and

Smith was very much concerned with the welfare of the community and created The Wealth of Nations, to put forth most of his economic ideas, that are still considered today. The message Adam Smith alleged was that since people satisfied their own self needs, then the economy would work affectively. For example, “When people look to their own self-interests, they contribute unintentionally, by means of an invisible hand , to the welfare of society” (Smith 281). Smith talks about the invisible hand as a guiding tool towards supply and demand within a society and argued the division of labor generates wealth not just for that one person but for the nation as a whole. By selling products that are in demand, for the purpose of earning money people are engaging in within their enterprises. Additionally, the more demands, the more people want to invest, the more people need to work, the harder it is to find a job when the economy is at a low. Today, the invisible-hand theory is often guides free markets and capitalism in the direction of efficiency, through supply and demand and competition for scarce resources.

In the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith talks about international trade and subsequent government policies which became increasingly significant throughout modern history. Protectionism is the term for economic policies of restraining trade between countries when they want to protect their domestic industries from foreign competition. Trades nowadays have different forms and methods and involve more businessmen as well as consumers, which is why trade diplomats are looking to regional agreements. The US experienced two major economic declines during the 20th century, both of which had much to do with international trade. Smith mentioned tariffs in the 18th century, but the role and forms of protectionism have changed across time, so we should know whether the development of economy should actually be correlated with or decided by the political sector of the society and when protectionism will benefit or hurt economy.

Imagine if Adam Smith, Karl Marx and Samuel Smiles got together to discuss the Industrial Revolution. What would they say to one another? On what points would they agree? On what points would they disagree?

Adam Smith and Karl Marx similarly develop theorems that explain abstract ideas in relation to aspects of a functioning society through their personal observations. The ideals they conceptualize, however, suggest vastly opposing societal structures. Their contrasting outlooks on a model economy gradually leads to the modern debate between the merits of capitalism and communism.

People have been debating the structure of the governments and the economic systems during centuries. These arguments began with the publication of The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith in 1776. He discusses the basic principles of "Capitalism  in his book. However, in 1848, a new idea called "Communism  comes up with The Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx. These two ideas seem to be opposite, in fact, they differ in many ways; however, they also have something in common. In this essay, first of all, I will analyze these two texts to find out the differences and similarities between the ideas of Karl Marx and Adam Smith. Then, I will move on to the effects of these two men's ideas on today's governments and

Adam Smith born the year 1723 was thought to be one of the world’s greatest economists. In Fact he was known as the father of economy. He was also known by the way he thought and the way he wrote about the country's economy and in this paper I will explain the way he described and the way he thought of the economy and why his thoughts have carried on for the last two hundred years.

Since the early days of the United States, the Founding Fathers and other brilliant minds sought ways to understand and make sense of the inner workings of society and the economic market. Out of the many thinkers and developers of that time period, perhaps none made so great an impact on American society as the Scottish contemporary philosopher and political economist, Adam Smith—who is most known for his influential work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, By the early nineteenth century, other streams of economic theory emerged from various individuals who were also influenced by the ideas of Smith. Some of these individuals included David Ricardo, Karl Marx and later John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman—each of whom contributed their own ideas on economic activity. However, it was Smith’s ideas on capitalism and his laissez-faire approach to free markets that have transcended other economic theories and continue to impact American economic thought to this day.

“Free trade is not passé, but is an idea that has irretrievably lost its innocence” (Krugman, 1987, p.132). In his article, Is Free Trade Passé, Paul Krugman writes that the classical trade theory has been replaced with a new trade theory. The classical trade theory is based on constant returns to scale and perfect competition, is driven by comparative advantage, and endorses free trade. This classical theory emphasized the idea that trade was brought about by differences in tastes, technology, or factor endowments between countries (Krugman, 1987). However, the new theory of international trade is driven by increasing returns to scale, also known as economies of scale, and leads to imperfect competition (Carbaugh, 2011).

One of the greatest international economic debates of all time has been the issue of free trade versus protectionism. Proponents of free trade believe in opening the global market, with as few restrictions on trade as possible. Proponents of protectionism believe in concentrating on the welfare of the domestic economy by limiting the open-market policy of the United States. However, what effects does this policy have for the international market and the other respective countries in this market? The question is not as complex as it may seem. Both sides have strong opinions representing their respective viewpoints, and even the population of the United States is divided when it comes to taking a stand in

Free trade has long be seen by economists as being essential in promoting effective use of natural resources, employment, reduction of poverty and diversity of products for consumers. But the concept of free trade has had many barriers to over come. Including government practices by developed countries, under public and corporate pressures, to protect domestic firms from cheap foreign products. But as history has shown us time and time again is that protectionist measures imposed by governments has almost always had negative effects on the local and world economies. These protectionist measures also hurt developing countries trying to inter into the international trade markets.

Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, shows support for free trade and emphasises it as a trade policy which ought to be adopted. Krugman and Obstfeld back Smith's support by stating that the efficiency of trade is increased by free trade and accumulates the national income of countries. Free trade is a theory which suggests that each nation benefits in specialising in an economic activity from which it gains absolute advantage, enjoying absolute superiority over other nations in a specif economical activity (Peng). With free trade follows opportunity, replacing regulation and growth of economic activity. (Rugmann and Collinson).

Ever since the first involvement of government in international trade, many people have posed their opinion about what the role of government should be in it. Different factors are involved when it comes to deciding what this should be. It impacts a lot of people, so in order to do that, trade policy must be properly defined, identify what the roles of government currently are, and their involvement in it, and then analyse what should be their role. Trade policy is how a country carries out trade with other countries (Commercial Policy, n.d). Even though a lot of people support government intervention in international trade, countries would benefit a lot more if the government removes protectionism and promotes free trade instead.