"No complaint... is more common than that of a scarcity of money"

Adam Smith’s observation that “No complaint... is more common than that of a scarcity of money” captures a persistent feature of economic life: the sense, almost universal across time and society, that there is never quite enough money to go around. This sentiment is not purely about the physical currency available, but rather about the feeling of financial insufficiency that individuals, businesses, and even governments frequently experience. Behind the statement lies a broader reflection on the nature of economic dissatisfaction.

People often measure their economic well-being not by what they have, but by what they lack or desire. When Smith refers to a scarcity of money, he is alluding not only to the limited quantity of actual coins and notes, but more deeply to the perennial gap between wants and means. Human desires and ambitions usually outpace resources. As one’s means expand, so too do one’s aspirations; the sense of scarcity is not easily dispelled by greater wealth or more abundant currency.

The complaint about scarcity also reveals misunderstandings about the functions and nature of money. Many suppose that economic hardship is primarily caused by a shortage of money in circulation, overlooking deeper structural issues such as productivity, resource distribution, and the effectiveness of institutions. Smith himself argued that money is merely a vehicle that facilitates transfers of value; real wealth, for him, lay in goods, services, and productive capacities. The persistence of the complaint he records thus highlights a confusion between nominal and real wealth.

Moreover, Smith’s words point to a psychological and social dimension. The lament over inadequate money becomes a common refrain because it is a simple explanation for complex economic difficulties. It externalizes blame and abstracts away from individual or policy choices. Thus, the “scarcity of money” becomes a convenient focal point for anxieties about economic uncertainty. Smith’s wry remark is as relevant today as in the eighteenth century, reminding us that economic dissatisfaction is both a material and a psychological phenomenon, perpetually renewed as desires grow and challenges persist.