Speaker
Description
In Chapter II, Book II, Wealth of Nations, Smith develops the distinction between the ‘gross’ and ‘neat’ revenue of a country. Taking the rent of an individual estate as the point of reference, Smith generalizes the distinction between gross and net, migrating from the sphere of an individual estate into that of a whole country. The ‘value of the annual produce’ of any country also holds the distinction between gross and net revenue.
The generalization essayed in Chapter II is representative of Smith’s efforts of transiting from categories presented in the individual realm – the revenue of an individual, the value of a commodity... – into aggregative categories, such as the revenue of a country. The problem is how to align the two spheres, the individual and the collective, preserving the meaning of Smith's original ‘revenues’ – wages, profit and rent – and preserving Smith’s approach to surplus. In other words, how to compare categories such as surplus and value, presented in Book I in the realm of individual commodities, with their aggregative counterparts. It must be added that Smith is in Book II, Chapter II, presenting money as a ‘particular Branch of the general Stock of the Society...’; that is, digressing on money. In other words, the net versus gross distinction is instrumental to the development of Smith’s view of money and of his overall criticism of the ‘mercantile system’. Does the monetary backdrop of the gross versus net disjunctive affect its consistency?
Taking the distinction between ‘gross’ and ‘neat’ revenue as the point of departure, the paper will try an approach to Smith’s aggregative methods. I think this approach will also enlighten the reappraisal of some controversial Wealth of Nations’ categories and concepts, such as value, produce, revenue.
| Organization | UNICAMP |
|---|
