>>18088943
Because profit was never motive and captialism is always zero sum, in any model at all and not just in practice, there's no way profitability or wages or anything like that would ever matter. In Smiths time wages didn't exist because there was no manufacturing, and the only time wages were a factor at all was for a brief period from when unions became common, to WW1/WW2 where nobody cared, and then afterwards where manufacturing died and also nobody cared.
Your quote in OP isn't ironic because smith didn't care about markets at all and nothing he wrote mentions markets, so he would have that kind of attitude if banks existed when he was around. The bank of England was the only bank that existed for hundreds of years and when free banking occurred nobody considered it anything more than a pyramid scheme.
Everyone did account for "ai" because everyone had a completely physiocratic understanding in the past. Mises invented capitalism from scratch in 1919 and defined it as a new term. Capitalism was created in WW2 because of auto financing, mortgages and credit cards. If you walked into a store in 1950 you could take anything and everything was free.
It was growth of these requirements to spend money that even made wages an issue and only a few years after this became an issue, jobs already completely died in the 1980s layoffs and in the 1973 oil crisis boomers understood everything was over. The concern was everything would fail and die and the fact ai was involved is quaint as everyone just expected to die.
Even today ai is just a buzzword to hire Indians and fire people and AI is not factor in economics but meth is and everyone will die that way obviously and imminently.