Almost Right But Not Quite
Rev. Dr. Marilyn Sewell writes on “Economics and Religion” HERE:
“A word about the ancient god of the free market system, Adam Smith. When Smith is quoted regarding the "invisible hand" of the market, what is conveniently forgotten is his assumptions about the conditions necessary to make free markets work. Smith assumed that we would operate on a small scale and so would know the character of the people we trade with. He assumed that our financial dealings would exist in the context of our values. Instead, Smith's writing is used to justify the mad pursuit of shareholder profit, which is held to be holy and untouchable.”
Comment
Smith was not an “ancient god of the free-market system”.
He regarded primitive belief in gods as “pusillanimous superstition” (his History of Astronomy, 1744-58; published posthumously in 1795 on his direct instructions just before he died in 1790).
He did not have a theory of the “invisible hand of the market”.
The rest of the paragraph as a statement of his broad views is acceptable:
“Smith's writing is used to justify the mad pursuit of shareholder profit, which is held to be holy and untouchable.”
Modern interpretations, and not a few inventions too, of Smith’s views are almost wholly wrong. Dr Marilyn Sewell, a minister of the Christian religion, is excused. I presume she wrote the above in good faith.
“A word about the ancient god of the free market system, Adam Smith. When Smith is quoted regarding the "invisible hand" of the market, what is conveniently forgotten is his assumptions about the conditions necessary to make free markets work. Smith assumed that we would operate on a small scale and so would know the character of the people we trade with. He assumed that our financial dealings would exist in the context of our values. Instead, Smith's writing is used to justify the mad pursuit of shareholder profit, which is held to be holy and untouchable.”
Comment
Smith was not an “ancient god of the free-market system”.
He regarded primitive belief in gods as “pusillanimous superstition” (his History of Astronomy, 1744-58; published posthumously in 1795 on his direct instructions just before he died in 1790).
He did not have a theory of the “invisible hand of the market”.
The rest of the paragraph as a statement of his broad views is acceptable:
“Smith's writing is used to justify the mad pursuit of shareholder profit, which is held to be holy and untouchable.”
Modern interpretations, and not a few inventions too, of Smith’s views are almost wholly wrong. Dr Marilyn Sewell, a minister of the Christian religion, is excused. I presume she wrote the above in good faith.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home