The argument in The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith depends on the Essay - 1

The argument in The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith depends on the possibility of reverse. Why is this so What implications does this have - Essay ExampleSmith has based his theories about opulence on the general principle that man is not by nature a benevolent creature but is rather motivated by self interest to seek the best benefits for himself, it also follows that viewed from the other(a) side of the coin, such actions to promote himself and improve his own welf atomic number 18 arise out of a reluctance to fail. The extent of mans industriousness and want are dependent upon the depths to which he expects to fall if he fails.Smiths views were offered in the context of mercantilism where a protectionist policy on trade and a free market was preferred, under the mistaken notion that wealth could be preserved within the boundaries of rich nations only by preventing free trade. Smith contest the prevalent views that stated England would soon be ruined by trade with foreign countr ies and that in almost all our commercial dealings with other nations, we are losers, belonging to the assumption that England would be drained of her wealth through such trade and this would lead to destitution.(Smith, 1775 I18) Therefore the policy of protectionism was mooted by those who were afraid of failure and loss of the wealth and riches they had accrued.Smith on the contrary believed that money was not consumable and that the consumption of goods was the greatest offset of wealth and also the source of mans industry which led to additional wealth. Therefore, his views rebutted the belief that indulging in a free trade of goods would produce failure in that it would lead to a loss of wealth. He argued that inspite of the arguments that had been advanced by political writers for decades that in a few years we would be reduced to an absolute state of poverty , the realities of a system of free trade and exchange between nations actually demonstrated that rather than the fe ared loss of money actually coming through, we find ourselves farther richer than before. (Smith, 1776, I19).Therefore Smiths arguments