Wealth+of+Nations+and+the+U.S.+Constitution

//An Inquiry into the Nature of the Wealth of Nations// influenced the forefathers of the United States an a few different ways and idea's from the work were adapted to the U.S. Constitution.

What ideals were incorporated into the United States Constitution, and where were they taken from? A few of these ideals may very well have come from //An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations// by Adam Smith. Smith's ideas on a political-economy made their way into the ideals of the new American mind set in quite a few ways.

//An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations// includes Smith's views on various subjects including: the division of labor, the different employment of capitals, and quite a few other perspectives regarding political-economy. The founding fathers may have read Smith's work and incorporated some of his ideals.

Areas where the United States Constitution and Adam Smith's //An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations// show a relationship in ideals appear in the following areas:


 * Book I, Chapter I, Of the Division of Labor and articles one, two and three of the constitution which establish the three separate branches of government.


 * Smith's ideas on capitalism vs. mercantilism.

In //An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations// Smith talks about the division of labor, and the difference between a man who does everything himself in the making of something and the other side which is a literal assembly line of men working towards a common goal. He describes how the man who does everything pertaining to his job makes much less of said object than a group of men who specialize in a certain aspect of its making. As shown by this excerpt, "The different operations into which the making of a pin, or of a metal button, is subdivided, are all of them much more simple, and the dexterity of the person, of whose life it has been the sole business to perform them, is usually much greater," (I.1.6).

This ideal shows up as one of the main aspects of the Constitution. It is shown in the first three articles of the Constitution which state the the United State's government will be broken down into three branches of government (i.e. Judicial, Executive, and Legislative). This allows the government to function better as a whole. One reason that the creators of the constitution added this is because of this particular quote from the book, "This great increase of the quantity of work which, in consequence of the division of labour, the same number of people are capable of performing, is owing to three different circumstances; first to the increase of dexterity in every particular workman; secondly, to the saving of the time which is commonly lost in passing from one species of work to another; and lastly, to the invention of a great number of machines which facilitate and abridge labour, and enable one man to do the work of many,"(I.1.5.). This quote explains the benefits of splitting labour into different operations, basically saying that the separation of work leads to the dexterity of each person meaning they are far better at that particular skill, then one who ran the whole operation by their lonesome. It also states that this leads to work getting done much faster.

Do you think Smith's idea of splitting up labour is better than that of doing the work by one's self?

Do you think this is the an efficient way to run the government?

The fathers of the constitution established the U.S. with different ideals then that of other countries. Smith may have influenced them to do this when he talked about the way that England functions versus the American colonies as shown by this quote, "The funds destined for the payment of wages, the revenue and stock of its inhabitants, may be of the greatest extent; but if they have continued for several centuries of the same, or very nearly of the same extent, the number of labourers employed every year could easily supply, and even more than supply, the number wanted the following year. There could seldom be any scarcity of hands, nor could the masters be obliged to bid against one another in order to get them. The hands, on the contrary, would, in this case, naturally multiply beyond their employment. There would be a constant scarcity of employment, and the labourers would be obliged to bid against one another in order to get it."(I.8.24.) This part of Smith's work may have led to the forefathers leaning towards that of capitalism and the governments small role in that of the countries economics.

====== === ==  