#the wealth of nations

[clove-pinks]

A tender mother, among the inferior ranks of people, is often afraid to send her son to school at a seaport town, lest the sight of the ships and the conversation and adventures of the sailors should entice him to go to sea.

— Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

William Redmore Bigg (British, 1755–1828), The sailor's farewell

[panicinthestudio]

A deep dive into capitalism with Scene on Radio podcast co-host John Biewen, July 5,2024

Scene on Radio, the Peabody-nominated podcast series produced by The Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University, has dedicated its latest season to exploring the history, failures and future of capitalism over the course of 13 episodes. John Biewen, co-host of the podcast, joins us from North Carolina for a big picture conversation about the system that governs the lives of a large chunk of humanity. France 24

[lilliankillthisman]

I've been reading The Wealth of Nations for a really interesting look at cutting edge 18th century economics (plus. so that I know when people I'm reading are misrepresenting Adam Smith) and it's all really impressive, sensible stuff.

And then you get to this passage on how poor Irish sex workers are the most beautiful women in all British dominions and this proves the superior wholesomeness of the potato over wheat, oats and rice???

[empirearchives]

“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.”

— Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations. This is the quote that inspired Napoleon to refer to England as “a nation of shopkeepers”

[gameofthrones2020]

The Wealth of Nations

The Wealth of Nations and how the course of woman liberation was mad possible due to new technologies from the Industrial revolution

The Industrial Revolution brought fantastic opportunities for developing specialisation, best described in the philosopher and economist Adam Smith’s book The Wealth of Nations, first published in 1776. In Mr Smith’s book, he argued for specialisation that will lead to cheaper goods and services that will enable people to have more items and better living standards, which will also lead to…

[poetryintheraw]

Das Capital this, Wealth of Nations that, what if we pretended the economy was fake? What if we let the poor little English majors continue on in their collegiete journey without troubling them?

[palatinewolfsblog]

"We should measure the prosperity of a nation not by the number of millionaires but by the absence of poverty, the prevalence of health, the efficiency of public schools, and the number of people who can and do read worthwhile books." W.E.B. Du Bois.

[identitty-dickruption]

maybe it's the fucking nerd in me, but I honestly believe that is crucial for aussie left-wingers to read the constitution and related documents for largely the same reason as Richard Dawkins believes all atheists should read the Bible. I mean he was stupid for saying that so please forget that I aligned myself with him. but like. if you're going to be debating against people who believe that strongly in a document, you gotta put your head down and Read The Darn Thing

[odinsblog]

Racial covenants can be found in the property records of every American community. These restrictive clauses were inserted into property deeds to prevent people who were not White from buying or occupying land.

Racial covenants served as legally-enforceable contracts. They stipulated that the property had to remain in the hands of White people and they ran with the land, which meant that it could be enforced in perpetuity. Anyone who dared to challenge this ban risked forfeiting their claim to the property.

A survey of the 30,000 covenants unearthed in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties illuminates the wide variety of people targeted. An early Minneapolis restriction proclaimed that the "premises shall not at any time be conveyed, mortgaged or leased to any person or persons of Chinese, Japanese, Moorish, Turkish, Negro, Mongolian or African blood or descent." Before 1919, Jews were often included in this laundry list of “objectionable” people.

This language shifted with time. This eugenics-inspired list gave way to simpler declarations that the property could only be “be occupied exclusively by person or persons. . .of the Caucasian Race.” While many different kinds of people were targeted by racial covenants, every restriction identified by Mapping Prejudice bars Black people, as they were perceived by White Minnesotans to be particularly likely to decrease property values.

Real estate developers used racial covenants to sell houses, promising home buyers that covenants would protect their investment.

These same developers worked with park commissioners to make land adjacent to racially-restricted neighborhoods into public green space. These parks, they argued, would enhance the value of the property in these new neighborhoods. These rising values would also benefit municipal governments by swelling local tax coffers.

White homeowners also profited from racial covenants. A team of University of Minnesota researchers has demonstrated that Minneapolis houses that had covenants are worth 14 percent more than identical houses that never had covenants. This “bonus” value persists today, more than 50 years after the Fair Housing Act made these racial restrictions illegal.

The families who owned houses with covenants were able to pass that value on to the next generation. This intergenerational transfer of assets continues to drive the racial wealth gap in the United States today.

(continue reading)

[clove-pinks]

James Gillray, The bow of a three-decker; part of a ship with figure-head at left. Pen and grey ink, with grey and pale buff wash, made 1772-1794 (British Museum).

Adam Smith had a lot of interesting things to say about sailors in The Wealth of Nations (1776):

The lottery of the sea is not altogether so disadvantageous as that of the army. The son of a creditable laborer or artificer may frequently go to sea with his father's consent; but if he enlists as a soldier, it is always without it.

But he dates himself with statements like: "The great admiral is less the object of public admiration than the great general; and the highest success in the sea service promises a less brilliant fortune and reputation than equal success in the land." (Obviously this is before the Royal Navy was respectable enough to have a king's son as a midshipman, and other aristocracy who crowded its ranks post-Battle of Trafalgar).

After a mention of sea captains being less in "common estimation" than army colonels, this passage about sailors rings true for the early 19th century:

Common sailors, therefore, more frequently get some fortune and preferment than common soldiers; and the hope of those prizes is what principally recommends the trade. Though their skill and dexterity are much superior to that of almost any artificers, and though their whole life is one continual scene of hardship and danger, yet for all this dexterity and skill, for all those hardships and dangers, while they remain in the condition of common sailors, they receive scarce any other recompense but the pleasure of exercising the one and of surmounting the other. Their wages are not greater than those of common laborers at the port which regulates the rate of seamen's wages.

Thomas Rowlandson, Ships and Sailors (late 18th century-early 19th century), The Met.

[violentdevotion]

I watched s4 of the boys and a lot of the criticisms of the american military fall a bit flat when there's literally someone who served in the iof in the cast

[cogcltrcorn]

*guy delivering the coldest most delusional take in the universe voice* hey guys have you guys heard national anthem by lana del ray??? very kenstewy core me thinks

[cashweasel]

for Valen + Gideon 💋 + 🎮, also 👋

Ideal date: valen loves a romantic picnic with activities, you can never go wrong with a sunset, some wine and card games 😌 gideon is a pilot so spontaneous day trips and exploring a new city is 10/10 plus it’s a free flight! fjskakhjs

Favorite hobby: valen has always been into music as a child he played violin and later joined as part of an orchestra he also sings, plays and really enjoys making music, gideon has 700 hobbies lol mostly he’s just out on his bike 🏍️. Their favorite shared hobby is tennis and judging ppl at the country club loll

Siblings: gideon is an only child but valen has a brother and he’s hot lmaoo this is his fc, I don’t know his name 😂

[Oc headcanons: Picture Edition!]

[shochet]

This post is funny to me because of the entirely needless and useless coquette comment & this isnt me trying to be like mean about op or u my beloved mutuals who have reblogged this one, it's just that kroje like this & esp bridal ribbon crowns of this style are from Ve��ký Lom Slovakia if im remembering correctly.... this post is very funny to me though. keep it coming it is making me giggle. I cannot speak to the validity of the secone line of information given, but due to op calling these czech when im like 95% sure theye are Veľký Lom wedding kroje makes me dubious- however if it's true that's baller. I sincerely wish the information of where these are from was better. If they are a czech variant of this kroj style i'd really just have loved a town name.

[deepseacityunderground]

i think this speaks to a great us-american (and to a lesser extent western) misunderstanding of just how relative their wealth and position is compared to the rest of the world... having stable internet access, stable housing, stable electricity, stable water supply, stable economy (even with the inflation that most of the west has dealt w/ recently), stable government, all of these things are huge priviliges in fact. to turn around and blame your ignorance on a lack of education in one of the richest countries on earth, or turn around and lecture ppl on the usa is a "third world country w a gucci belt" (disregarding that the term third world was not about wealth but about political positioning on a global stage whatever) showcases a basic lack of understanding about wealth infrastructure and poverty on a global scale.

[eaglesnick]

“Leverage is the reason some people become rich and others do not become rich” - Robert T Kiyosaki

The privatised water companies have been demanding price rises of between 24% and 91% over the next five years according to the Consumer Council for Water. The mainly foreign owned "English" water companies want to invest £96bn in water and sewage restructuring between now and 2030. New reservoirs, the first for over 30 years, will be built, leaks will be reduced and less sewage will be pumped into our waterways and seas.

Amen to that! But wait…

“English water firms have handed £57 billion to shareholders in the 30 years after privatisation.” (The London Economic: 28/10/21)

We, the consumer, having generously contributed to foreign share dividends for three decades to the tune of £2 billion per year, are now expected to part with even more money to pay for 30 years of private water company neglect. Meanwhile, the CEO’s of these private companies gave themselves a 20% pay rise for the year 2021-22, pocketing £24.8 million.

None of these facts are particularly new but what really irked me yesterday morning was an interview on BBC’s “Today" programme with David Henderson, CEO of Water UK, the organisation that represents all of the privately owned water companies.

Stressing the country’s need for “economic growth", Henderson said this would not be possible unless the water companies were allowed to drastically raise the price of water to cover the cost of investment needed to upgrade our water infrastructure. Talking of the need to increase water supply he stated:

“We have not built a reservoir in 30 years, even though our population has risen by 20% in that time. And that’s because we have been blocked by regulators and by planning officials around the country.”

The cheek!

According to New Civil Engineer magazine (01/09/22)

“There is a seemingly direct link between the 1989 privatisation of water companies in the UK and the ceasing of new reservoirs being built. While there have been a number of flood alleviation reservoirs built by the Environment Agency in this time, the water companies have not invested in potable drinking reservoirs.”

While I have no doubt that some applications for new reservoirs have been refused by planning authorities the main reason for inadequate reservoir capacity is the reluctance of the privately owned water companies to spend money on investment. Despite what David Henderson said on the Today programme this is a headline from the Express:

“Water firms ‘sold off reservoirs that could have eased drought' - Profit ahead of supply" (10/08.22)

In defending the private water companies Henderson was merely doing his job - after all that is what he is paid to do - but unfortunately their behaviour is indefensible. The reason that our waterway infrastructure is near collapse is not because investment plans have been blocked by “regulators and planning officials" but because of greed.

When Margaret Thatcher privatised the previously publicly owned water companies she sold this national asset for a grand total of £7.6bn. In addition she gave the newly created privately owned water companies a “green dowry" of £1.5bn. At time of purchase the water companies were totally debt free.

Fast-forward and what do we find?

“Water firms’ debts since privatisation hit £54bn as Ofwat refuses to impose limits.” Guardian: 01/12.22)

The water companies have spent the last few decades borrowing money, not to improve the water supply and sewage disposal infrastructure, but to pay dividends to shareholders. According to Ofwat’s own figures the water companies have been running ratios of debt to capital value as high as 80%. Water company share holders (70% owned by foreign investors) have received £65.9bn in dividends and it is calculated that 20% of household water bills go towards paying for the debt that rewards these shareholders.

Rachel Reeves much heralded national wealth fund is supposed to be a central plank of the Labour governments “Green Prosperity Plan” but Labour’s earlier promise to nationalise the dysfunctional private water companies has now been abandoned.

David Henderson has issued what in effect is a blackmail ultimatum to the new Labour Government that without massive price rises in consumer water bills, the Labour Party can kiss their dreams of economic growth goodbye.

Today Ofwat, the water regulator, sanctioned an average increase in water bills of 21%, some companies charging as much as 44% more over a five year period. This is a third less than what the water companies demanded, but even a 21% rise over five years is an increase of 4% a year, twice the inflation rate target of the Bank of England.

An interesting case study will be that of Thames Water which has dire financial problems due to building up a debt of £14bn (while still paying out tens of millions in dividends to its shareholders). It remains to be seen if Thames Water will be allowed to go bust or whether the new Labour Government will step in and bail it out but maybe this headline gives us a clue:

“Labour abstain on bid to criminalize water companies for sewage pollution” (Canary: 17/05/24)