Adam Smith on bad people

This is another good example of why I love Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nations is really quite a funny book; weirdly, his passages on the driest of subjects are often the most hilarious. Here he compares taxes on luxury goods, like tea, chocolate and port, to taxes on necessities. He says raising the price of luxury goods could actually have a positive effect on society:

"The high price of such commodities does not necessarily diminish the ability of the inferior ranks of people to bring up families. Upon the sober and industrious poor, taxes upon such commodities act as sumptuary laws, and dispose them either to moderate, or to refrain altogether from the use of superfluities which they can no longer easily afford. Their ability to bring up families, in consequence of this forced frugality, instead of being diminished, is frequently, perhaps, increased by the tax. It is the sober and industrious poor who generally bring up the most numerous families, and who principally supply the demand for useful labour. All the poor, indeed, are not sober and industrious, and the dissolute and disorderly might continue to indulge themselves in the use of such commodities after this rise of price in the same manner as before without regarding the distress which this indulgence might bring upon their families. Such disorderly persons, however, seldom rear up numerous families, their children generally perishing from neglect, mismanagement, and the scantiness or unwholesomeness of their food. If by the strength of their constitution they survive the hardships to which the bad conduct of their parents exposes them, yet the example of that bad conduct commonly corrupts their morals, so that, instead of being useful to society by their industry, they become public nuisances by their vices and disorders. Though the advanced price of the luxuries of the poor, therefore, might increase somewhat the distress of such disorderly families, and thereby diminish somewhat their ability to bring up children, it would not probably diminish much the useful population of the country."

Preachers of principle preferred over preachers of profit

The Financial Times published my third letter! I tried bragging about it yesterday at an afternoon keg party, but no one knew the paper. So, I gave up. (And I suppose when one is wearing a bikini, one really should not talk about Mao Zedong. That's probably one of those 'rules.')

Here's the text of the letter (you can click on the title link, too):

Sir,
Michael Shtender-Auerbach says Google cannot "preach" when it "bears a fiduciary obligation to put profit over principle" ("Google's lack of virtue", Letters, May 25). He has a point. The most successful preachers put principle over profit; look at China's own Mao Zedong.

It seems we will always prefer preachers of principle over preachers of profit (at least until the phrase "principle motive" becomes as common as "profit motive"). After all, the rarer a thing is, the greater its value . . .

By the way, this letter was inspired by pure, selfless principle (and not by the fact that I recently applied for a job at Google and am still awaiting a response).

Discount sale?

What would happen if we treated our individual rights as commodities? If we broke freedom and democracy down into their constituent elements (like the right to privacy, right to free speech, etc.), then how much would each one be worth to you? What would you trade it for? It would be interesting to see an online game, or an extension of EBay, where you could trade away rights that you think you'll never need. For example, if I don't ever think or say anything outrageous, maybe I'd like to sell my right to free speech for a trip to Europe...or some new home furnishings.