It's been a whole day since we tweeted Part 2 of this chapter, so let us remind you: #AdamSmith just said that the colonies got nothing that helped them succeed from the mother country. (IV.vii.c) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

So these two opening sentences are pretty heckin’ sarcastic:
Now we've seen the great advantages the colonies got (they got nothing!) (IV.vii.c.1)
So what have been the great advantages to Europe! (IV.vii.c.2)

Seems like there’s a...tone there. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Europeans buy goods from America, and Americans buy European goods as well. Even countries that don’t trade directly with America have benefited. (IV.vii.c.3–8) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
The mother countries restrict colonial trade (esp the exclusive right to buy from or sell to their colonies). That's a dead weight on the increase of the wealth of nations. Everything is more expensive, everyone enjoys less of it. (IV.vii.c.9) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Maybe European countries get added security? In ancient times, empires expected military support and revenue from their colonies, and they got it.
18thC colonies? Not so much. (IV.vii.c.11–13) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Only Spain and Portugal were able to tax their colonies heavily enough to make a profit. For everyone else, colonies were an expensive luxury. (IV.vii.c.13) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Monopolies that mother countries gave themselves over (some enumerated) colonial goods are really the only "advantage" of colonies.
And it's only a relative advantage—enumerating the goods makes others poor, it doesn't make you rich. (IV.vii.c.15–18) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
And #Monopolies? Not sure if you know this but... Smith hates ‘em.

Here's the #TLDR for the next 45 pages, Smithsters: colonial monopolies aren't special. They suck, too. (IV.vii.c) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
No one:
Absolutely no one:
#AdamSmith: Let me tell you the disadvantages of monopoly trade with one’s colonies!
#BuckleUpButtercup…(IV.vii.c) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
1. Trade with the colonies requires so many resources that other trades are decaying. (IV.vii.c.20–23)
2. Rates of profit on English trade are all out of whack and that messes with many things. (IV.vii.c.24–28)
3. The colony trade means we trade in a round-about rather than a direct fashion. With Smith's theory of capital, that's expensive and inefficient. (IV.vii.c.36)
4. The colony trade pulls us away from trading with neighboring countries. Also expensive/inefficient. (IV.vii.c.37)
5. Colonies are always understocked/in debt. (IV.vii.c.38)
6. Commodities that can only be sold to Great Britain oversupply Great Britain, which then has to be re-export them. (Smith finds this painfully dumb.) (IV.vii.c.40)
7. Resources that should be used to import good stuff to Britain get used to re-export stuff they require colonies to sell them, but can’t use. (IV.vii.c.41–42)
8. British trade is overdependent on colonial trade. That single focus is dangerous.( IV.vii.c.43)
A lot of these downsides stem from Smith's theory of capital which is...not how we think about capital today.

Frankly, it's amazing that we still think that so much of what he said here is right. Just not for the reasons he thought. (IV.vii.c.20–43) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
We, the SmithTweeters, are very into early modern medicine (who isn't?), so let's geek out at Smith’s blood circulation metaphor.
The circulation of blood keeps a body healthy.
The circulation of trade keeps a nation healthy. (IV.vii.c.43) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
So to save Great Britain from the equivalent of a national aneurysm, these restrictions on colony trade should be reduced. Free Trade! The statins of….okay, we’re stopping. (IV.vii.c.44) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
The dangers of overdependence weren't theoretical. In 1774, 12 American colonies boycotted all British trade. The effects weren’t immediately awful, but Smith predicted gradual distress. (IV.vii.c.45) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

https://t.co/CtZp6LnHBc
The monopoly on colony trade also interfered with liberty and justice, not just wealth.
Mercantile regulations were dangerous and hard to fix without more regulations. Which are also dangerous. (IV.vii.c.44) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Colony trade is “always and necessarily beneficial”.
𝙈𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙮 colony trade is “always and necessarily hurtful.” (IV.vii.c.46–51) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Colony trade is SO beneficial, in fact, that mother countries benefit from their colonies in spite of their rigid restrictions.
But it is 𝗗𝗘𝗦𝗣𝗜𝗧𝗘, not because of trade restrictions. (IV.vii.c.52–55) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Smith will never, ever stop listing reasons that monopoly colony trade is bad.
But here’s the big one:

It is wrong to promote the interests of one small group in one country by hurting the interests of everyone else in the world. (IV.vii.c.60) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
“To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers may...appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project...for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers. (IV.vii.c.63) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Dominion over colonies (as opposed to trade with them) gets Great Britain nothing. It only costs them... (IV.vii.c.66–80) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
...but suggesting Britain voluntarily give the colonies up would offend national pride and private interests.

Smith wouldn’t dream of suggesting such a thing. (He’s suggesting it.) (IV.vii.c.66–80) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
OK, fine, Dr. Smith. ONE MORE TIME: Monopolies derange the natural distribution of stock, and that’s always bad. (IV.vii.c.88–97) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

https://t.co/ozOGOpA0OT
Smith's language about the African colonies and East Indies grates, but he clearly deplores the depredation of colonies. (IV.vii.c.100–102) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
The East India company is particularly bad. As bad as sovereigns are at being merchants, merchants are just as bad at being sovereigns. (IV.vii.c.103–106) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
So yeah, like we said...
SmithTweeters out!

More from @AdamSmithWorks

More from Society

A long thread on how an obsessive & violent antisemite & Holocaust denier has been embraced by the international “community of the good.”

Sarah Wilkinson has a history of Holocaust denial & anti-Jewish hatred dating back (in documented examples) to around 2015.


She is a self-proclaimed British activist for “Palestinian rights” but is more accurately a far Left neo-Nazi. Her son shares the same characteristics of violence, racism & Holocaust denial.

I first documented Sarah Wilkinson’s Holocaust denial back in July 2016. I believe I was the 1st person to do so.

Since then she has produced a long trail of written hate and abuse. See here for a good summary.


Wilkinson has recently been publicly celebrated by @XRebellionUK over her latest violent action against a Jewish owned business. Despite many people calling XR’s attention to her history, XR have chosen to remain in alliance with this neo-Nazi.

Former Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell MP is among those who also chose to stand with Wilkinson via a tweet.

But McDonnell is not alone.

Neo-Nazi Sarah Wilkinson is supported and encouraged by thousands of those on the Left who consider themselves “anti-racists”.
Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.

You May Also Like