Why do I need to read WN?

Because I’m a historian of economic thought focusing on 18th C. Scottish banking institutions. Smith is kinda relevant, particularly when he was (unofficially) involved in the aftermath of the 1772 credit crisis, his pupil Henry Scott became the Governor of the Royal Bank of Scotland for 35 years, and his theories had the attention of most every Whig and Tory in Parliament.

Everything in economics post-1776 has been variously Smithian, anti-Smithian, but nothing has been non-Smithian. It helps my work to be able to read a publication and know where Smith is being used, and where he’s being departed from.

Why do you need to read WN?

You probably don’t, frankly.

Don’t get me wrong: George Stigler was correct that at some point every sentence in WN will have become the basis for a PhD dissertation. There’s so much in there it’s hard to understate it.

But WN is also Smith’s attempt to grapple with some practical issues of governance related to 18th Century Britain. You probably aren’t going to be interested in the Corn Laws. You certainly don’t care about variations in the price of coined silver. Most of the book will be lost to the lay reader today simply because you lack the political context in which Smith was writing.

If, however, you’ve decided to give Smith a try — and he is an excellent wordsmith — start with Book 1, Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 10. Digest that, and put the book down for a month. If you really really want more, then go back for more. But don’t say I didn’t warn you.