Brandon Chicotsky

Economist Adam Smith, Not Always Accurately Portrayed…

It’s my belief that anyone who pursues a legislative or municipal seat in government must understand and consider different schools of economic thought. Legislation, budget allocations, oversight of city works, and management of a government labor force all factor into economics – whether locally or nationally measured.

My education of economics began, oddly enough, with an analysis of Reaganomics by libertarian humorist, P.J. O’Rourke. Satire peaked my interest when I first heard O’Rourke, because I wanted insight and context to connect with the humor my elders enjoyed. To find this, I studied iconic figures like Adam Smith, John Keynes, and Milton Friedman. Admittedly, this was not typical for a teenager.

To begin modern economic thought, one must consider Adam Smith. He is touted as the father of laissez faire (a French term, literally meaning, “leave it alone”), and is championed by conservatives and corporate libertarians as intellectual proof for limited government and pure-free-market reign.

As we dive deep into his writings, particularly his most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, we learn that he is more pragmatic and accepting of government involvement than often perceived. He describes scenarios where government can boost infant industry through subsidies as long as government is relieved of the financial burden once the industry grows into maturity.

Smith describes government and corporations as corruptible and problematic, but in necessary marriage. In, The Wealth of Nations, government is posed as a ploy to protect the wealthy from the poor through a barrier system, while also a mechanism for protecting private property. Smith details how taxes can become badges of liberty, not slavery, as long as they are paid in absolute necessity and, “as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

To me, Smith advocates for a basic form of government, which protects property and preserves the integrity of the nation-state. Far reaching programs and bloated government, as we often find in contemporary economic environments, would be offensive to Smith. As a pragmatist, not a firebrand or pure-free-market zealot, I agree that government should be small and efficient.

I also agree that government can provide safe guards, and checks and balances, but only in limited circumstances. For example, consumer protection agencies, the Food and Drug Administration, and public education are areas of government I want to preserve and improve to better our society and strengthen the private sector.

-Brandon Chicotsky