Thursday, December 04, 2008

Lost Legacy Quoted on Blogs

A post on the “Failures - exposed, reflected upon, considered” Blog (HERE):

Transformation of Smith and his message”

“Adam Smith, the father of modern economics”, pleaded for leaving all economic activities to be regulated by market forces without any restraint from state or any other organized group. He believed, “the invisible hand” would coordinate them and run them without any violent ups and downs.”

This paragraph or one along the same lines is leveled at those who question wisdom and efficiency of so-called free markets associated with the name of Adam Smith, father of modern economics, who originally propounded the idea in his Wealth of Nation. However, many proponents of the theory seem to have either very scarce idea of the original context and intended message of Smith’s work or a specific aim to befit it to an agenda fitting their narrow socio-political and economic aspirations. Below is an elaboration on misconceptions arising from a paragraph above
Then follows a post direct from Lost Legacy of 25 July 2006:
“Fanatics' Foundations Founded on Nonsense” HERE (follow the link).

There is also another link to Lost Legacy via the Undergraduate Economist (perspective of an economics student) Blog:

On the ‘Invisible’ Adam Smith’ by Alex Thomas describing Lost Legacy as “a must read for those who want to ‘know’ Adam Smith”.

This post mainly deals with the common misconception about Adam Smith, whose name is known to all students and professors of Economics; the misconception being the notion that he advocated laissez-faire. Sadly, his works are not as known. (Though the names of his two major works are widely known) So, this post tries to makes visible what is commonly invisible regarding Smith.

In the Indian Schools, textbooks in Economics associate him with the ‘wealth definition’. In Frank ISC Economics, which is authored by D K Sethi and U Andrews, Adam Smith is supposed to have defined Economics as “A science which enquires into the nature and causes of wealth of nations.” Definition is “a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol”. [] Adam Smith has never defined Economics is the afore mentioned way. Is it ‘right’ to teach such ideas? Isn’t it against the ethics of academics? A large number of students are programmed in such a way in school, whereby their notion of economics is constituted only by neoclassical economics. Plurality in economics has been totally done away with. Teachers teach what is printed in the textbooks. No questions are asked

All mentions of Lost Legacy are welcome. I have noticed several references recently to Lost Legacy in the Indian press and its blogs. All adds to the global work to rescue Adam Smith from the clutches of the modern epigones.


Post a Comment

<< Home