Both Karl Max and Adam Smith have both made equality a pivotal issue in their approaches to the analysis of political economies. Smith in his analysis of equality in political economy advances that political economy is the science of the rules of production. In his view, Smith argues that free market and equality have some quarrelsome relationship. According to The City of University of New-York (2011), “the market helps create inequalities, but it also undercuts the financial inequality of any given moment, allowing the rich to fall and the poor to rise.” A dominant characteristic of market economy is inequality. Smith believes equality should manifest itself in society through the development of free exchanges that have the capacity to deter these inequalities from hardening into disproportionate levels.
First-Class Online Research Paper Writing Service
- Your research paper is written by a PhD professor
- Your requirements and targets are always met
- You are able to control the progress of your writing assignment
- You get a chance to become an excellent student!
Max on the other hand believed that equality should manifest itself in the society in a manner that every individual has the right to be free from the arbitrary exercise of power (The City of University of New-York, 2011). In the view of Max, the classical tradition of political economy is devoid of providing explanations for the prices. Despite the fact that Marx left all interesting elements in the theory unexplained, private property, separation of labor, monopoly and competition and the system of money are a contradiction to the liberalism and problem liberalism brings froth to state actors, capitalists and workers.
I agree more with the view of smith given the implications of Smith’s arguments on the current political economy. First, radical economic inequality breeds significant political inequality and second, free markets can serve as a way of mitigating these inequalities. Adam Smith stands a good position in understanding inequality in society because of his ability to explain the complex inter-actions that exist between the ruling feudal lords and the lower class trading merchants and compare that to the present day political economy.