Hey David, just wanted to say thanks for these extremely high-quality summaries and explanations! They are wonderful. Especially thankful for your lack of ads. Amazing work.
I always thought the division of labour was meant to represent the start of markets as people specialised in the production of particular products. Therefore, in your example of shoes, the cobbler is a prime example of the division of labour as they make shoes and that is their craft, but since they cannot eat the shoes they make, they trade shoes for food etc etc. Therefore, the division of labour is more akin to the break between 'traditional' or feudal society and 'early modern society' (around the 1400s in Eur). What you compare can be considered industrialisation, an extreme form of the division of labour that alienates the producer from their product in order to increase efficiency (anachronously you could call it Taylorism). Maybe I'm mistaken though, I haven't actually read Smith in a long time.
Note that you've divided the proportion of listeners by shedding light on his supposed racism, thus ensuring that the proportion of those who labor by listening is not a unity.
Within one minute of starting the summary, the narrator calls Smith a racist. Why? Just stick to the topic and leave the personal stuff out. Anyone listening to this summary is NOT interested in racism.
I also cannot believe that he began this discussion with that comment! So juvenile. Every single person on planet earth was a “racist” at that time. Oh… ok so he then reveals that he believes Smith is garbage and that Marx is where the truth lies. This guy is a clown. BTW, I don’t deny that Smiths economics are outdated.
Hey David, just wanted to say thanks for these extremely high-quality summaries and explanations! They are wonderful. Especially thankful for your lack of ads. Amazing work.
You're doing the lord's work. Thank you for this!
Thank you! I’ll be listening to all of your summaries before reading
Coming back to this after a year!
I can’t believe that it was mentioned in the first minute of discussing Adam Smith that he was racist.
40:47 produce that affords rent
43:05 war effects on corn
you are the best
This work is both underrated and overrated at the same time
truer words have never been commented
Will you do a video series on The Critique of Pure Reason?
I always thought the division of labour was meant to represent the start of markets as people specialised in the production of particular products. Therefore, in your example of shoes, the cobbler is a prime example of the division of labour as they make shoes and that is their craft, but since they cannot eat the shoes they make, they trade shoes for food etc etc. Therefore, the division of labour is more akin to the break between 'traditional' or feudal society and 'early modern society' (around the 1400s in Eur). What you compare can be considered industrialisation, an extreme form of the division of labour that alienates the producer from their product in order to increase efficiency (anachronously you could call it Taylorism). Maybe I'm mistaken though, I haven't actually read Smith in a long time.
Note that you've divided the proportion of listeners by shedding light on his supposed racism, thus ensuring that the proportion of those who labor by listening is not a unity.
Good.
@@TheoryPhilosophydistasteful really
Hi! I am not sure if you have gone over this on your channel, but I would love to see what you think about Achille Mbembe's Necro-politics!
Will you be doing the Austrians after Marx?
Do Austrian economics next please.
A baker a butcher and a brewer walk into a bar..
You need to read Jennifer Pitts’s book. He was far from a racist
I believe as a black man that we should not consider a persons liking before actually understanding their views and information
i think you should make it clear that these videos are not audiobooks.
Within one minute of starting the summary, the narrator calls Smith a racist. Why? Just stick to the topic and leave the personal stuff out. Anyone listening to this summary is NOT interested in racism.
Yeah that really turned me off. He was just a man of his times, good or bad.
I also cannot believe that he began this discussion with that comment! So juvenile. Every single person on planet earth was a “racist” at that time.
Oh… ok so he then reveals that he believes Smith is garbage and that Marx is where the truth lies. This guy is a clown.
BTW, I don’t deny that Smiths economics are outdated.
Harris Jeffrey Davis Sharon Harris John
Goodbye. What the hell does racism have to do with this book?