"wealth of nations" by adam smith, please help?

I am 15 years old and I had to read the wealth of nations by adam smith this summer and I have to write a 4-5 page essay on it. I have one question. Is the mercantile system a necessary evil of the capitalist model or should governments intervene to establish regulations that make the "race for wealth" among nations of this world fairer?. I also had to read Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.. If you can please help me compare and contrast the ideologies of smith and marx and offer an opinion on wich ideology could benefit a citizenry most...Thanks in advance.

I got into economics because of Adam Smith. Your first set of questions is open ended. As long as you make an argument for your point it won't be wrong.

Two short points just to keep in mind:
a. Smith established everyone does things for their own self-interest. Butcher helps the baker who helps the candlestick maker. Easy to remember.
b. Marx and Engels thought that labor could not afford the products they purchased and there would be an excess of supply and collapse capitalism. However this lacked innovation and thus no need to advance and the fall of a centrally planned society.

I am a laissez-faire market economist. My opinion is that the markets can regulate and government intervention impedes the system.

For the more advanced readers: The political rents paid can obviously make the interested party oblivious to its own demise.

What kind of Nazi teacher do you have to assign such a monstrous assignment at 15? I would have my 3rd year students do something like this, not a 15 yr old!
Greed is a more reliable motivator than altruism.
The Communist Manifesto fails to work when people are given freedom to choose because each of us has a different belief in what we should be contributing and what we should receive from others. The people one knows are more important to one than the people one does not know. My family lives by the rule "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Within my family we are able to achieve reasonably consistent agreement on what each person can contribute and what each person needs. For large groups of people such agreement is almost impossible to achieve.

The problem that should involve government is not that some people get wealth and some others do not. The problem that should involve government is that some people get wealth by taking from others. The government should also be involved in providing some safety net that does not allow people to fall below a certain standard of living. People should not starve to death and people should not die from medical conditions that are treatable just because they have no resources of their own.

If I were Wealthy then I would have to do something with the wealth I acquired. Either I would spend it on things or services in which case others would gain employment to produce the goods or services I purchased or I would save my money and the institution that held my wealth would invest it in some business that would provide employment to others. The government should only be involved with my paying my fair share of the costs of the services provided by the government or protecting me from people stealing from me or ensuring that the source of my wealth was not an illegal activity.

The Soviet Union failed to survive because the government did not have the same goals as the people that lived within its borders.
Marx was a great man.
Smith was a greedy *** f***.

The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.

More Questions and Answers:
  • How come in economics, we focus more on wants not needs?
  • When will it rise agian?
  • Help???////////////////?
  • How to determine currency rate?
  • Which is much better?
  • What American inventions/innovations has the American economy most benefited from?
  • Economics homework help again :P?
  • Difference between pure competition and perfect competition?
  • What effect does our poor personal finance skills have on the us economy?