In the introduction to the Wealth of Nations Smith divides a country’s annual output into the “necessaries” and “conveniences” of life. One of the pressing issues of his time and ours is whether a country’s citizens (or even all of its residents) have a right to the “necessaries of life,” and therefore whether the state (or government) should intervene in their production and distribution to assure all sufficient levels of consumption of these vital goods. In Smith’s time this debate focused on the regulation of the grain trade (Hont & Ignatieff, pp. 15, 19). Today, in the US, it centers on issues such as “medicare [or healthcare] for all” and affordable housing. Which side of these debates would Smith support and why?

In “The Introduction to The Wealth of Nations” Smith Divides a Country’s Annual Output into the “Necessaries” and “Conveniences” Of Life Name Institutional Affiliation Instructor Course Date Part 1: Adam Smith’s Theories and Ideas In "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," Adam Smith offers a fundamental idea of a healthy nation’s output comprising the "necessaries" and the "conveniences." In that light, food, shelter, and medical care represent necessaries for survival and fundamental well-being. In addition, "conveniences" are the items and services that improve comfort and quality of life but are unnecessary for survival. Smith (2002) establishes the broader concepts of market dynamics, the government's role, and, more importantly, the production, distribution, and consumption as subjects for economic theory and policies. Healthcare and housing are among the fundamental requirements for human survival, yet they are unequally distributed, leading to access struggles and quality division based on the economic ability of different people. Smith would not be happy to see the inaccessibility to proper housing and healthcare services since he believes that the necessaries of life should be available and accessible for everyone. Notably, he would advocate the government’s intervention to ensure that the problems in healthcare and housing are addressed to facilitate equality and accessibility. Specialization Smith (2002) emphasizes the importance of specific goods and services for life and welfare. These essentials, from food and shelter to health and education, make a living dignified and meaningful. However, imbalances in the productive labor powers make it challenging for some individuals to afford them. Through the division of labor, manufacturers compensate workers based on their job ranks, positions, and responsibilities (Smith, 2002). Junior employees are paid peanuts such that they have to forego several things since they cannot afford. Everybody has the right to the basics of life that integrate social fairness and justice. The government has an important role to play in the manufacture and distribution of these essential commodities. As such, its intervention would ensure that these necessities are not only available but also accessible to all citizens. For example, the government should determine the minimum wage, which should be revised regularly to ensure that earners can use this money to lead decent lives since they can afford necessities. Smith would support laissez-faire economic policies, which are based on the idea that the market can efficiently allocate resources and meet the needs of society with minimal government’s intervention. Smith (2002) notes that market failures need government regulation, which introduces limits to capitalism. Free Market Competition Under the unwholesome regimen perception highlighted by Smith in his book only the strongest entities can enjoy and lead fulfilling lives if there is no government intervention (Smith, 2002, p. 373). Similarly, with the contemporary issues in housing and healthcare, only the wealthy individuals can benefit since they can access high-quality medical services and the best houses due to the availability of financial resources. I support Smith's idea of a free market and competition in healthcare, as this would oversee the quality needed and attend to the health needs of people across the nation. Although during Smith’s time it was about grain trade, a free market and fair business environment would ensure that there are enough healthcare providers to serve the growing population. For instance, an increase in the wages and other financial benefits of health professionals can encourage many young people to study medicine and health, hence meeting the healthcare needs of all the citizens. However, Smith also had an ethical understanding of providing every member of society with free access to health care. Smith supports implementing market-based solutions, prioritizing ensuring those in need receive the best health care. Smith's (2002) doctrine challenges social inequality and sets rights and the happiness of the nationals. Even though he supported the benefits of market competition, he was also aware of the risks of uncontrolled market forces, which could lead to inequalities and injustices. Smith contends that providing required medical care involves the justice of the economy and is a moral duty in healthcare (Irwin, 2014). Output When it comes to a nation’s annual output, Smith believes it comprises the “necessaries” and “conveniences.” Nevertheless, the most challenging question is whether citizens or residents of a specific country can afford the necessities. Smith's theory of moral consideration acts as the basis for the obligation to see that each member of society lives without deprivation of the bare necessities. Indeed, it asserts only positive law can enhance societal justice by ensuring that people can afford the things they need to surviv...