Hyperbole From Ayn Rand Institute
Grace
Hollis, Associate Editor, reports (18 April) a speech to students, in Cavalier
Daily Here ,
by Don Watkins, a Fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. He has written economic policy issue pieces for the Ayn
Rand Institute for the past six years. He currently blogs on Forbes.com
“Ayn Rand
Institute fellow Don Watkins.
spoke to the University
community yesterday evening about his qualms with the nation’s entitlement
programs, which include Social Security and Medicare.
Watkins sought to answer
the question, “What’s really wrong with entitlements?” and first explained how
he believed the nation progressed from “limited government” to an “entitlement
nation.”
“It turns out Americans
didn’t starve in the streets [before entitlement programs,]” Watkins said.
“Even I was surprised by how much people thrived in the world without
entitlements … It’s not an accident Adam Smith published ‘Wealth of Nations’ in
1776 and that it was that unleashing of free human minds in markets that led to
an explosion of innovation and creativity.”
Comment
Follow the link for the
rest of the speech. My interest
was drawn to the above extract.
Entitlements, paid for by
taxation and borrowing, have a tendency to grow, once embarked upon, as do
regulations, tax laws, laws themselves, constitutions, and amendments thereto.
Contrary to Don Watkins’
assertion, it was not an accident that “Adam Smith published ‘Wealth of
Nations’ in 1776”. It was just a
coincidence, in my view. It is
even less likely that his book unleashed “free human minds in markets that led
to an explosion of innovation and creativity.” Such assertions are retrospective judgements, and hyperbole.
First, the ‘facts’: Smith
completed his manuscript in 1773 and he left his mother’s house in Kirkcaldy
with his hand-written pages for London to see his book through the press. In
those days it could take 3 weeks to travel by coach on what passed for roads
from Kirkcaldy (via a small boa)t to Edinburgh and then by more 'roads' to London. By taking
the trouble of travelling to London and living close to his publisher, Smith
saved what would have been many months spent receiving and sending back
corrected proofs of the manuscript’s typeset pages, with many pages going back
and forth by coach in multiple exchanges between his publisher and himself. Normally, this would take a year or
more to have it ready for publication.
In the case of Wealth Of Nations it took over three years.
We know this because in
later editions of his two books, Moral Sentiments (1759) and Wealth Of Nations
(1776) his surviving correspondence includes many letters regarding his proofs,
some taking months to be sent and returned throughout the five editions of each
work he prepared up to just before he died in 1790. His correspondence in 1773 with his close friend, David
Hume, reveals his anxieties about losing his manuscript on the journey, or
worse: “should I die very suddenly I shall take care that the Papers I carry
shall be carefully sent to you.” (Letter to David Hume, 16 April 1773). It was common practice for travellers from Scotland to London to write their wills
before setting out.
What else did he do to
prolong his expected shorter stay in London? According to David Hume, Smith became “very zealous in
America affairs” (Letter from David Hume to Adam Smith, 8 February 1776). Smith was consulted by Government
Ministers and MPs about taxation policy and what should be done to avert the
slide into violent confrontation with the Colonists. The net affect was that Wealth Of Nations was held back from
publication, though it was completed and ready to be printed. Therefore, it was an accident that
Smith’s most famous book was delayed from sometime in 1774 until March 1776,
three months before the Colonists’ Declaration of Independence on 4 July 1776.
It was not the American
Declaration of Independence and the final triumph of the Colonists over the
British, let alone the coincidental publication that year of Wealth Of Nations
that unleashed “free human minds in markets” that “led to an explosion of
innovation and creativity”. The
long process to freeing “human minds in markets” and the “explosion of
innovation and creativity” necessarily associated with free markets had begun
centuries earlier in Northern Italy, what is now the Netherlands, and England
(and in Scotland too).
Claiming this for the USA and a single, if remarkable book, selling a
few thousand copies across three editions, is retrospective hyperbole. Deep, lasting, changes to
socio-economic systems do not spring from a single event, nor a single book.
Don Watkins’ “qualms with
the nation’s entitlement programs, which include Social Security and Medicare”
are 21st-century, politically-motivated “qualms” that have nothing
to do with Smith’s undoubted contributions to political economy. “Entitlements” had nothing, in modern
jargon, to do with anybody’s political agenda in the 18th
century. For Smith, his agenda for
pragmatic reform focussed, almost to the exclusion of all else, on the removal
of the “mercantile political economy” of his day, which political economy
continued “jealousy of trade”, “tariffs and prohibitions”, long and expensive
wars against potential trading partners, choking monopolies that “narrowed
competition” and raised prices to consumers, and of course, the pursuit of
Empire. These were the unstated
targets of Smith’s ire, it not being safe to openly criticize the Monarch
directly.
Wealth Of Nations, said
Smith, contained a “very violent attack” on the entire “commercial system of
Great Britain”. How much changed for his books over the following 240 years? In these respects, I suggest, not very much.
Meanwhile, the necessary
and truly revolutionary “explosion of innovation and creativity” conducted by
mainly anonymous individuals over several centuries, and more recently, at an
astonishing rate that is dispersed across the globe, continues relentlessly in
dispersed markets, not by design and not by top-down command, nor by a single book, more quoted than read. These deep social market processes continue to
liberate billions from dire poverty, shortened lives, disease and ignorance at
an unprecedented rate.
[This post was written in April and appears no to have been published in Lost Legacy.]
2 Comments:
Just an FYI, it's not generally fair to criticize a speaker based on a newspaper reporter's brief summary.
Don Watkins
Hi Don
I am sorry if my comments caused you offense. However, it goes to show that what we say may re-appear in publication and as such may not give a fair impression, hence we must be careful when speaking in public about how our spoken words are transposed in publications, especially when speaking to students.
The points reported about the significance of Smith's Wealth Of Nations in 1776, important dates in the history of the USA are often highly exaggerated in public media - there was no significance in the publication date, as the facts show. WN was ready for the press by around mid-1774. If it had been published in 1774 this would break the, sometimes presented as mystical, even divine, link with the events in 1776 would have been broken.
Only today I read on the Internet a media report claiming that Smith saw the "industrial revolution" starting in the USA as a result of 1776, which is rubbish. Long after Smith's death in 1790, the phrase "industrial revolution" was first composed.
But thanks anyway for advising me about writing third party comments that may be unrepresentative of the speaker's views.
Gavin Kennedy
Post a Comment
<< Home