A Good Idea for a Celebration, But...
College of Charleston holds an annual ‘Adam Smith Week’ (8 March), which, normally, I would welcome handsomely for its educational mission (details HERE) .
John Stossel , the talented free markets’ advocate, is to speak during it, so it will do some good.
But, wait, what’s this?
“Adam Smith is one of the most recognizable figures in economics, and his contributions to the fields of philosophy and economics are still relevant today,” says Pete Calcagno, associate professor of economics and Director of the IPCM. “His concept of the invisible hand is considered the classic statement on laissez faire capitalism.”
Comment
Oh dear! Pete Calcango manages to perpetuate two myths which are slurs on Adam Smith’s life work, simultaneously in a single sentence.
By whom is the “concept” (sic) of an “invisible hand” considered ‘the classic statement on laissez-faire capitalism”?
Not by Adam Smith, whose works show the metaphor (not a concept) to refer to feudal (not capitalist) landlords feeding the “thousands whom they employ” (they had no real choice but to do so); see Moral Sentiments (1759) TMS IV.ii.10: 184; and to some, but not all merchants who were risk-averse and concerned for the security of their capital and in consequence preferred to invest locally rather than abroad, which, on the arithmetic rule that the whole is the sum of its parts, added to national output; see Wealth Of Nations (1776) WN IV.ii.9: 456.
Lost Legacy urges students (and, clearly, staff tutors too!) to look up the only two references to “an invisible hand” that Smith makes in his two main books.
They do not amount to a “concept” and had nothing to do with “laissez-faire” (words that Smith never used), nor to “capitalism” ( a word invented in English in 1854 by Thackeray; Smith died in 1790).
John Stossel , the talented free markets’ advocate, is to speak during it, so it will do some good.
But, wait, what’s this?
“Adam Smith is one of the most recognizable figures in economics, and his contributions to the fields of philosophy and economics are still relevant today,” says Pete Calcagno, associate professor of economics and Director of the IPCM. “His concept of the invisible hand is considered the classic statement on laissez faire capitalism.”
Comment
Oh dear! Pete Calcango manages to perpetuate two myths which are slurs on Adam Smith’s life work, simultaneously in a single sentence.
By whom is the “concept” (sic) of an “invisible hand” considered ‘the classic statement on laissez-faire capitalism”?
Not by Adam Smith, whose works show the metaphor (not a concept) to refer to feudal (not capitalist) landlords feeding the “thousands whom they employ” (they had no real choice but to do so); see Moral Sentiments (1759) TMS IV.ii.10: 184; and to some, but not all merchants who were risk-averse and concerned for the security of their capital and in consequence preferred to invest locally rather than abroad, which, on the arithmetic rule that the whole is the sum of its parts, added to national output; see Wealth Of Nations (1776) WN IV.ii.9: 456.
Lost Legacy urges students (and, clearly, staff tutors too!) to look up the only two references to “an invisible hand” that Smith makes in his two main books.
They do not amount to a “concept” and had nothing to do with “laissez-faire” (words that Smith never used), nor to “capitalism” ( a word invented in English in 1854 by Thackeray; Smith died in 1790).
Labels: Invisible Hand, Laissez-Faire
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home