
Today we start the last book of #AdamSmith's #WealthOfNations.
Allons-y!
#WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets


We SmithTweeters boldly support smaller & fewer wars. (V.i.a.5) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Leave your loom? There's no loom-fairy to do your weaving. With no weaving, you don’t make money.
(We know there's no field-fairy, work with us.)
If you want soldiers, you have to pay them. (V.i.a.9) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
The more developed a society, the fewer inhabitants are willing or able to go to war. (V.i.a.10–11) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
The first gives you a militia, the second, a standing army. (V.i.a.16–19) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
*American SmithTweeting contingent whistles Yankee Doodle in upstart colonial*
(V.i.a.23–25) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
There were a lot of them. (V.i.a.29–38) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
https://t.co/40ylHzfS6v
We have to pause now, because we have to have a whole new tweet thread on #AdamSmith and \u201csavage nations,\u201d because he\u2019s going to keep using this kind of phrase, so we need to talk about it. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
— @AdamSmithWorks (@adamsmithworks) January 4, 2021


So, weirdly, a standing army can→more liberty. (V.i.a.41) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
More from @AdamSmithWorks
Book II of #WealthOfNations! It's all about stock! Not the kind you fill with chicken and noodles, but the kind that (according to #AdamSmith) makes commercial society go 'round. (II.intro)
https://t.co/FlxQLGdjbW
#WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
First! A quick review: without division of labor, every person must provide everything they need. No one accumulates or stores up stock. You do what you can with what you have when you have it. (II.intro.1) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
But once the division of labor develops (remember, it’s the secret sauce!) we have so many wants that we can’t provide for them all ourselves. Most of them are provided for by others, and we purchase their labor with our own. (II.intro.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Here's why this all matters when we think about stock: we can’t purchase other people’s labor until we have completed (and been paid for) our own. So we need a stock of supplies to sustain us until we can finish our work and get paid. (II.intro.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Obviously, we need that BEFORE we start working in this way. So to get the division of labor you need the accumulation of stock. It’s an ingredient of the secret sauce. (All the best sauces are made with stock!) (II.intro.3)
https://t.co/wi1HtrmBPb
#WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
https://t.co/FlxQLGdjbW
#WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
First! A quick review: without division of labor, every person must provide everything they need. No one accumulates or stores up stock. You do what you can with what you have when you have it. (II.intro.1) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
But once the division of labor develops (remember, it’s the secret sauce!) we have so many wants that we can’t provide for them all ourselves. Most of them are provided for by others, and we purchase their labor with our own. (II.intro.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Here's why this all matters when we think about stock: we can’t purchase other people’s labor until we have completed (and been paid for) our own. So we need a stock of supplies to sustain us until we can finish our work and get paid. (II.intro.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Obviously, we need that BEFORE we start working in this way. So to get the division of labor you need the accumulation of stock. It’s an ingredient of the secret sauce. (All the best sauces are made with stock!) (II.intro.3)
https://t.co/wi1HtrmBPb
#WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
More from Culture
@bellingcat's attempt in their new book, published by
@BloomsburyBooks, to coverup the @OPCW #Douma controversy, promote US and UK gov. war narratives, and whitewash fraudulent conduct within the OPCW, is an exercise in deception through omission. @BloomsburyPub @Tim_Hayward_
1) 2000 words are devoted to the OPCW controversy regarding the alleged chemical weapon attack in #Douma, Syria in 2018 but critical material is omitted from the book. Reading it, one would never know the following:
2) That the controversy started when the original interim report, drafted and agreed by Douma inspection team members, was secretly modified by an unknown OPCW person who had manipulated the findings to suggest an attack had occurred. https://t.co/QtAAyH9WyX… @RobertF40396660
3) This act of attempted deception was only derailed because an inspector discovered the secret changes. The manipulations were reported by @ClarkeMicah
and can be readily observed in documents now available https://t.co/2BUNlD8ZUv….
4) @bellingcat's book also makes no mention of the @couragefoundation panel, attended by the @opcw's first Director General, Jose Bustani, at which an OPCW official detailed key procedural irregularities and scientific flaws with the Final Douma Report:
@BloomsburyBooks, to coverup the @OPCW #Douma controversy, promote US and UK gov. war narratives, and whitewash fraudulent conduct within the OPCW, is an exercise in deception through omission. @BloomsburyPub @Tim_Hayward_
\u201cAllegations of our involvement with the intelligence services are of course false,\u201d says Bellingcat founder @EliotHiggins https://t.co/55V7sJV9or
— UnHerd (@unherd) February 15, 2021
1) 2000 words are devoted to the OPCW controversy regarding the alleged chemical weapon attack in #Douma, Syria in 2018 but critical material is omitted from the book. Reading it, one would never know the following:
2) That the controversy started when the original interim report, drafted and agreed by Douma inspection team members, was secretly modified by an unknown OPCW person who had manipulated the findings to suggest an attack had occurred. https://t.co/QtAAyH9WyX… @RobertF40396660

3) This act of attempted deception was only derailed because an inspector discovered the secret changes. The manipulations were reported by @ClarkeMicah
and can be readily observed in documents now available https://t.co/2BUNlD8ZUv….
4) @bellingcat's book also makes no mention of the @couragefoundation panel, attended by the @opcw's first Director General, Jose Bustani, at which an OPCW official detailed key procedural irregularities and scientific flaws with the Final Douma Report:
I woke up this morning to hundreds of notifications from this tweet, which is literally just a quote from a book I am giving away tonight.
The level of vitriol in the replies is a new experience for me on here. I love Twitter, but this is the dark side of it.
Thread...
First, this quote is from a book which examines castes and slavery throughout history. Obviously Wilkerson isn’t claiming slavery was invented by America.
She says, “Slavery IN THIS LAND...” wasn’t happenstance. American chattel slavery was purposefully crafted and carried out.
That’s not a “hot take” or a fringe opinion. It’s a fact with which any reputable historian or scholar agrees.
Second, this is a perfect example of how nefarious folks operate here on Twitter...
J*mes Linds*y, P*ter Bogh*ssian and others like them purposefully misrepresent something (or just outright ignore what it actually says as they do in this case) and then feed it to their large, angry following so they will attack.
The attacks are rarely about ideas or beliefs, because purposefully misrepresenting someone’s argument prevents that from happening. Instead, the attacks are directed at the person.
The level of vitriol in the replies is a new experience for me on here. I love Twitter, but this is the dark side of it.
Thread...
\u201cSlavery in this land was not merely an unfortunate thing that happened to black people. It was an American innovation, and American institution, created by and for the benefit of the elites of the dominant caste.\u201d @Isabelwilkerson
— Zach W. Lambert (@ZachWLambert) February 11, 2021
First, this quote is from a book which examines castes and slavery throughout history. Obviously Wilkerson isn’t claiming slavery was invented by America.
She says, “Slavery IN THIS LAND...” wasn’t happenstance. American chattel slavery was purposefully crafted and carried out.
That’s not a “hot take” or a fringe opinion. It’s a fact with which any reputable historian or scholar agrees.
Second, this is a perfect example of how nefarious folks operate here on Twitter...
J*mes Linds*y, P*ter Bogh*ssian and others like them purposefully misrepresent something (or just outright ignore what it actually says as they do in this case) and then feed it to their large, angry following so they will attack.

The attacks are rarely about ideas or beliefs, because purposefully misrepresenting someone’s argument prevents that from happening. Instead, the attacks are directed at the person.
