d fashioned way of life. In Britain, in the past, producers were only there to earn what they needed to live. They were now trying to make a profit. In Shakespeares time the object of life for the ordinary citizen, for everbody, in fact, except the gentility, was not to advance his station in life, but to maintain it.The Economic Revolution p.25Times in Britain had changed. The object of life was no longer to maintain ones station in life, but rather to advance it as much as possible. Smith was quite apparently against this idea. He wanted things to stay the way they were. Smith was trying to preserve a way of life where only royalty could be extravagant; a merchant could never earn enough to build a castle. This was, of course, during and after the feudal system had managed to expand Europes population enormously. With an increasing population, comes the need for some sort of change in society. The change from a society with little personal gain, to the British Mercantile System, may have been that change. Smith may have been trying to preserve the old way of life, but that isnt to say that he just wanted things the way they used to be. His profession was an economist; he knew what he was talking about. He saw where things were going, provided commerce continued in this fashion. And he was right. You can look at any European country, or the US (which could be considered an extension of Europe), and you can see that commerce is a very warped business. If you go to a store now, you will find products that have been made in the absolute worst conditions, by people who get an outrageously small amount of money, and with materials that are the cheapest you can find. Is any of this to benefit the consumer? No, because the prices are still high, it is only so that the producer can make more money....
