Social Class Differences On The Long Run Essay

3. Explain the view of capitalism that was expressed in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.

The pivotal second chapter of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, "Of the Principle which gives occasion to the Division of Labour," opens with the oft-cited claim that the foundation of modern political economy is the human "propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another."1 This formulation plays both an analytical and normative role. It offers an anthropological microfoundation for Smith's understanding of how modern commercial societies function as social organizations, which, in turn, provide a venue for the expression and operation of these human proclivities. Together with the equally famous concept of the invisible hand, this sentence defines the central axis of a new science of political economy

Modern economic society can be described as a combination of certain points from several theories combined into one. Changing dynamics and economic needs of nations has spawned a development of various, and contrasting, economic systems throughout the world. Perhaps the two most contrasting philosophies seen in existence today are that of capitalism and communism. The two philosophers most notably recognized for their views on these economic systems are Adam Smith and Karl Marx. This paper will identify several fundamental aspects of economic philosophy as described by Smith and Marx, and will compare and contrast the views of these

For centuries, many philosophers have discussed the issue of class struggle. Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie both developed theories of the unequal distribution of wealth a long time ago; however the only Carnegie’s ideology could apply to American society today. In “The Communist Manifesto”, Marx first introduces the two main social classes: bourgeois (the upper class) and proletarians (the lower class or working class). He points out the revolution of industrialism has made changes of Capitalism to Communism. He suggests that the rich should redistribute property evenly because the proletarians have put a lot effort contributing in the

Smith, however, was of the opinion that Mercantile System was deeply flawed. Firstly, as given in the Fourth Book (3) of the Wealth of Nations, he argued that the real wealth of a nation was “not in the unconsumable riches of money, but in the consumable goods annually reproduced by the labour of the society”. (4) Secondly, the balance of trade, as observed by him, often did little to enhance the wealth of a nation and instead served to create violent national animosity instead. He instead put forth the idea of a balance of annual production and consumption, which if it were unfavourable would have caused a decay of the wealth of a nation. Thirdly, Prof. Smith was a strong critic of the idea of colonialism; stating that, “To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers, may at first sight, appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers, but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers. Such statesmen, and such statesmen only, are capable of fancying that they will find some advantage in employing the blood and treasure of their fellow-citizens, to found and maintain such an empire.”(5) The implication being that the idea of colonialism was of an extremely oppressive nature, beneficial only to the colonial

One of the things I did understand though is his idea that the key cause of the wealth of nations is the division of labor and in order to gain wealth or become wealthy, you must be productive. Being wealthy is not about the money. According to Adam Smith, money is the universal commodity which means that it is a universal, useful or valuable thing. Smith uses the example of a pin-factory to show the benefits of the division of labor. Each worker can specialize their own trade to make the making of a pin much faster. Smith gave the example of how to make a pin by giving worker number one the task of drawing out the wire, worker two straightens it, worker three cuts it, worker four points it and worker five makes the head. Dividing the labor up among multiple individuals allows production to constantly flow instead of having one man do all five of those jobs even though he is not specialized in those five tasks. I also agree with this idea of dividing up labor to increase production. If you have one man doing multiple jobs but he is only trained in one of those jobs, production will be much slower than when you hire multiple workers to do their own specialization. He also uses the invisible hand example. The invisible hand is an invisible or hidden “force” that gets people to use their own interests, without their knowledge, to profit society. As these people compete with each other by

The commentary from the author Jim DiEugenio(2014), of this article, Tracing the Source of Income Inequality,” does an account the second part of the book, “Capital in the 21st Century,” by Thomas Piketty. DiEugenio(2014) covers a wide array of topics concerning the public policy issue of income equality in not only the United States, but also globally in the latter half of the report of the book. In the beginning of the article, DiEugenio(2014) discussed about the differences in periods of the American economy with the eras of Reaganomics, the economy after the Great Depression, as well as the era after World War I. The economic era after the the Great Depression was a bustling time due to the programs being offered for low income

Capitalism has been the central force behind the growth of the United States’ progressive economy. Within such advanced economic system the chances of economic disparity are significantly high. In fact, over the past three decades there has being a steady increase in unequal wealth distribution among the economic classes. To sustain the current unequal wealth distribution among the classes of the American population, there are numerous factors that influence and shape this trend. For some members of the population it is alarmingly disturbing to know that recent statistics have shown that, “In the US [alone] the wealthiest 1% of its population owns more than the bottom 95 %” (Gutman). As for the difference in economic wealth, it resulted

Social class refers to the system of stratification of the different groups of people in a society. These different forms of classification are, in most instances, based on gender ethnicity and age. Social class makes everyone’s lives extremely different. For example: How long one can expect to live. In a wide range of ways, from success, to one’s health class, social class influences people’s lives (Grusky,2003).

role it has to play in industrialization, and its general impact upon the wealth of the state.

The idea of social inequality dates back since the time of our founding fathers. The mistreatment and unlawful equality and opportunity that these foreigners received became embedded into our history—this endless list includes, just to name a few, the Irish, Chinese, Jews, and most notably the African Americans (Blacks), who became slaves to the American people. Here in the United States, the current social class system is known as the class system, where families are distributed and placed into three different existing class—the upper class (wealthy), middle class (working), and lower class (poor). Since then, improvisations have been worked on into the class system, establishing now roughly six social classes: upper class, new money, middle class, working class, working poor, and poverty level. Social stratification is a widely common topic of debate because there have since been many arguments and debates on this controversial situation of social inequality and how it relates to social class and social mobility. According to Economist Robert Reich, he states that "The probability that a poor child in America will become a poor adult is higher now than it was 30 years ago..." (Reich, par. 5), meaning the given amount of equality, opportunity, and support that these struggle families obtain have gone mainly unnoticed by the government that it has gotten worst. The constant uproar of social inequality and injustice that these middle and lower working class families stem

There is perhaps not a more famous ongoing dialectic argument in the field of political economy than the one between Adam Smith and Karl Marx in regards to capitalism. The two thinkers, although coming to radically different conclusions about the outcomes of the capitalist system for all parties involved, agree on a surprising number of ideas such as labor being the source of commodities’ value, as well as the fact that the division of labor increases productivity. However, their different conceptions of what determines the price of a commodity, the driving force behind and the effects of the division of labor, and the purpose of the capitalist system have widespread implications that cause their holistic arguments to diverge considerably.

1. How may a student's social class origin and related factors impact on her/his learning outcomes and how can teachers intervene to effectively address any resulting disadvantages and injustices for students?

The advent of the ideal of capitalism is often attributed to Adam Smith. Sometimes called “The Father of Economics,” Smith was an 18th century moral philosopher from Scotland. Smith is perhaps most known for writing the book “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” In this book Adam Smith considers and advances the ideas of the division of labor, the invisible hand, the pursuit of self-interest, the proper role of government and the idea of a Laissez-Faire (or noninterventionist) economy. Each of these ideas were considered heavily during the establishment and development of the United States. Because of their adoption into the new American government, the United States became the forerunner to the free-market.

Karl Marx describes “Society as a whole [as being] more and more [split] up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other-bourgeoisie and proletariat” (Marx 124).  As Marx made his distinction between upper class, bourgeoisie, and lower class, proletariats, it is important to keep in mind the societal structure at the time.  To understand how classes were created and the disparity between the rich and poor, or, bourgeoisie and proletariat, it is necessary to examine how people came to be rich and poor.  Exploring a time before money existed will help us to process and understand reasons why the binary between rich and poor exists and how it is reflective of low and high art distinctions.