Is it possible that notable historic thinkers like Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Locke articulated ideas in the 17th and 18th centuries that can help us navigate the complexities of global trade and digital disruption?
Patrick Kilbride, Policy Fellow at the Center for American Principles, and principal at Kilbride Public Affairs, wanted to know – and he spent 37 hours listening to The Wealth of Nations by Enlightenment economist Adam Smith to find out.
Patrick is a public policy expert with experience as a Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative. He has held a number of executive strategy- and policy-focused roles at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Today, he is a Policy Fellow at the Center for American Principles, a 501(c)(4) focused on personal liberties, free markets, and strong national security.
His background in economics and trade policy allows him to look at Adam Smith’s writing and modern policymaking in conjunction, recognizing the ideas that still hold true and adding perspectives that help us apply them in today’s social and economic conditions.
Policymakers Can’t Ignore Reality
According to Patrick, it is dangerous to disregard fundamental concepts simply because they are ‘old.’ Even a digital economy is subject to economic facts and realities. Policymakers who ignore this will have to face the consequences.
As he explained, “When they do, they do it at their own risk because the world operates on reality. And when we legislate, when we regulate on the basis of wishful policymaking, the results almost always go wrong.”
While it is easy to take them for granted today, some of the principles Adam Smith articulated were completely new at the time. “Adam Smith is probably best known for some really specific points, including the benefits of specialization, the importance of the transferability of assets, the importance of ownership and being able to get paid for your work,” as Patrick explained.
Even getting paid for your work is not an expectation we should regard lightly. There are numerous ongoing lawsuits between AI-enabled search engines and media outlets that claim work is being taken and used without compensation. One notable example is The New York Times’ suit against Perplexity. This illustrates that even the seemingly benign concept of being paid for your work has to be continuously defended.
At the same time, we are constantly asked to redefine the terms and bounds that apply. It is one thing to build a physical object with your hands, another to develop intellectual property or do knowledge work. Both require effort and deserve compensation, but only one was conceived of when Smith was writing in the 18th century. He introduced this as a new idea to wealthy people who didn’t understand what compensation in return for effort could mean to the lives of artisans and laborers. Today, our challenge is to ensure that all categories of work are recognized and respected.
Reflecting on the Role of the Government
Patrick and I also discussed how the government has a role to play in supporting “enlightened self-interest,” another of the ideas that Smith popularized in The Wealth of Nations.
I’ve always thought of the concept of self-interest in an admittedly oversimplified way. If each of us is selfish all the time, somehow everything will work out in the end. Patrick was able to add a bit more depth and context on this point.
He pointed out that Adam Smith’s thoughts on the topic of self-interest have led to some of the most impassioned arguments against capitalism. “I do not agree in any form that greed is good,” he specified. “Greed is bad, but acting in your own self-interest is not what we should be defining as greed. Acting in your own self-interest is your obligation.”
If the system is working right, individuals, companies, states, and nations all acting in their own self-interest should lead to the creation and preservation of a productive economy. A country’s ability to align with its citizens’ self-interest will determine the success of the whole.
In recent years, we’ve looked at this dynamic through the application of regulations and tariffs. Governments must balance what they believe is necessary, while also understanding the impact their policies will have on individual industries and professions.
Just as everyone deserves compensation for their effort, that compensation serves as an incentive for people to enter a certain field or occupation – or not. We’re seeing AI change this practically overnight, but it still holds true. As long as people have the opportunity to invest in themselves and pursue their interests, innovation will continue.
“I think that's the lesson we constantly need to harken back to from a public policy perspective,” Patrick said. “We want to make it possible for people to invest themselves, not because they're independently wealthy, but because they have the capabilities that are adding productive value in our society.”
And that is an argument that stands true, whether it is the 1700s or the 2000s.
Interested in more on this topic?
Patrick and I are both avid readers and history lovers, and a number of additional resources came up during our conversation. Here is a list if you would like to learn more.
Book: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith
Book: Leviathan (1651), Thomas Hobbes
Essay: An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), Thomas Robert Malthus
Book: Enlightenment Now (2019), Steven Pinker
Book: Loonshots (2020), Safi Bahcall
Podcast: Uncancelled History with Douglas Murray | EP. 08 The Classics featuring Thomas Chatterton Williams (2023)
.png)