adam smith, the wealth of nations

(104): annual labour fund supplies the nation, and will bear a smaller or greater proportion in relation to

1. productivity;
   
2. proportion of population employed in useful (production) labour

(110): pin-factory

(111): impossibility of extending the division of labour in agriculture (because its nature doesn't admit of subdivisions) is the reason why productivity growth in agriculture won't keep pace with productivity growth in industry

(112-114): three reasons that the division of labour advances productivity:

1. increase of dexterity;
2. saving of time from task-to-task
3. invention of machines (a great part of which are actually the invention of common workers)

(116): observing a thoroughgoing interdependence

(117): European prince vs. African king

(117): origin of the division of labour has its roots in a 'propensity of human nature' [enter Smith's mythic anthropology]

(120): difference in natural talents is actually an effect (not the cause) of the division of labour

(121): the extent of the division of labour, of course, will always be limited by the extent of the market

(122): hint that the division of labour expands with better technology (the water-carrier opened up new markets, for example)

(126): again, assuming a petty-bourgeois economy of small producers (every man becomes a merchant--a 'commercial society') [here, of course, we see hte obvious flaws of conflating the social division of labour with the technical division of labour]

(131): value in use (the utility of an object) and value in exchange (the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of the object conveys) [water-diamond paradox demonstrates well the fact that they can be quite distinct]

(150): starting with the rude and early state -- it is obvious, here, that the proportion between the quantities of labour necessary for aquiring differnet objects seems to be the only circumstance that can dictate 'exchange-values' (based on the comparative hardships in production)

(151): now Smith introduces profits -- certain individuals emerge, having accumulated a stock, and deploy it in the employment of other industrious people. 'something must be given for the profits of the undertaker of the work.' so the value which the workmen produce [here he says add to the materials, but presumably also he would have to include that which carries over from the materials] resolves itself into two parts: wages, and profits. [a non-answer]

(151-152): profits are not wages (since they bear no relationship to the supposed hardship of this labour of inspectioin/direction). instead they are regulated by the value of the stock employed -- the more stock employed, the more profits made.

(152): now, with this argument, he suggests that the quantity of labour that goes into a commodity is not the only thing that regulates its exchange-value (i.e., the quantity of labour it will exchange for). we now have to make an allowance, also, for profit. [this is, again, just an assertion--and gives rise to a contradiction, in Smith]

(152-153): rent also enters the picture (by virtue of a landlord's right over property -- after the disappearence of land in common), and allowance will be have to made for it, as well.

(153): thus we get a (revised) statement of the determination of exchange-value -- the real value is measured by the quantity of labour each component part of price can command (so not only labour, but also rent and profit). all three will enter into the price of the 'far greater part' of commodities.

(156): three economic categories (not necessarily mapping onto class structure)

(157): a concluding passage that embodies Smith's confusions -- his double conclusions, re: exchange-value

(157-8): imp--natural rate of rent (1. depends on neighborhood in which the land is situated; 2. the fertility of the land) , wages, and profit (both rates regulated by 1. general condition of society; 2. advance/decline of society; 3. particular nature of each employment)

(160): Smith's discussion of the importance of competition--the notion of a 'central price', around which mkt prices will fluctuate; i.e., an equilibrium, but dynamically determined

(162): rent fluctuating least (but no real reason given--'by convention' of leases, etc.)

(167-168): in the rude and early state, the question of rewards to labour is all about relative labour costs. with the introduction of rent/profit, he's suggesting, it becomes a bit more complicated. both rent and profits make their respective deductions.

(169): Smith noting that the capital-labour relation is being generalized (i.e., you have fewer and fewer independent workmen who collect both wages and profit)

(169): Smith also noting that masters have a decisive advantage in negotiations

(170): spectre of the capitalist state

(170): imp--however, wages cannot sink below a certain level -- wages must be at least sufficient to maintain the worker, to reproduce him.

(171-2): imp--at the same time, certain circumstances can raise wages above or below this rate. namely, when demand increases. and demand can increase only when the funds for the payment of wages increases, as well: 1. revenue on the up; 2. stock on the up. wages cannot increase without an increase in revenue and stock--critically, it is not the size of the revenue/stock that matters, but rather "its continual increase" (Smith is giving the example of the US, vs. England--it's growth, not opulence, that produces a scarcity of labour)

(176): Smith's critique of the British in India

(181): Smith on the w-class

(183): of course, population is re-introduced into Smith's argument--so wages will only grow temporarily in the event of generally rapid accumulation growth. population will catch up, bringing wages down to their 'natural' level.

(187): alluding to the importance of exercising control over one's labour.

(188): in sum, then: the money price of labour will be regulated by

1. the demand for labour
2. the price of the necessaries and conveniences of life

(430): distinction between productive and unproductive labour rests on the question of whether the labour in question realizes itself in a commodity (for Smith, manufacture does; servants don't). it is not, then, a question of the class relations governing the labour, at all. also independent -- of course -- of usefulness.

(431-433): everyone has to be maintained, though, by the annual labour fund, which is exclusively produced by productive labour. rents and profits are the primary sources that sustain unproductive labourers.

(435): perfect Smith: "our ancestors were idle for want of a sufficient encouragement to industry."

(437): distinction between capital and revenue -- the former is deployed to expand production

(442): great nations are never imperiled by private decision -- it is the unproductive public sector that we ought to be concerned about

(446): more classic Smith -- together with a critique of the extravagance of the King

(459: Smith introduces the K-L ratio -- in different industries, the proportion of labour that capital is able to put into motion varies

(462, 465): here there's a story of progressively more productive labour being put into motion as you get towards agriculture (here a cow is treated as a productive labourer!?)

(463): rent can be considered as the produce of the productive powers of nature, lent to the farmer by the landlord.

(474): the economy is 'profit-driven' [which should orient our analysis, a la Shaikh's central contribution]