Talk:Adam Smith

All you want to know about Talk:Adam Smith


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adam Smith article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Good article Adam Smith was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
To-do list for Adam Smith: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Add citations to the The Wealth of Nations subsection
  • Briefly summarize other writings (Treatise on Public Opulence, Essays on Philosophical Subjects, Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue, and Arms, and Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Letters)
  • Standardize article to use all British English

Contents

Interesting Smith source

The article is a historical review of the 1st and 2nd theorems of welfare economics. The discussion of the 1st theorem is applicable to smith because he points out that Smith's comment about "the invisible hand" have been taken to mean that smith articulated some version of the 1st welfare theorem or that his analysis can be interpreted as such. Turns out the truth is more interesting and complex. It is a good read. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

old Legacy section

Added this disclaimer to the legacy section However, in his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard argued that the modern history of economics should properly begin with the physiocrats rather than with Adam Smith.

That paragraph of that section now reads this way..

The Wealth of Nations, one of the earliest attempts to study the rise of industry and commercial development in Europe, was a precursor to the modern academic discipline of economics. In this and other works, Smith is expounded how rational self-interest and competition can lead to economic prosperity and well-being. It also provided one of the best-known intellectual rationales for free trade and capitalism, greatly influencing the writings of later economists. Smith was ranked #30 in Michael H. Hart's list of the most influential figures in history,[1] and he is known as the father of modern economics.[2] However, in his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard argued that the modern history of economics should properly begin with the physiocrats rather than with Adam Smith. skip sievert (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you add a citation for that one, Skip? -FrankTobia (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"However" is a word to avoid if possible. I don't see a problem with the use here but I thought I would put that out. Maybe it can be rephrased as to avoid the perception of advancing a point of view. Morphh (talk) 15:01, 05 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure it could be rephrased as to avoid the perception of advancing a point of view.... however.. because a point of view was advanced... just before this point of view.. even though it may be wildly popular and much cited... the disclaimer word ... however ... sort of is reactive to the previous point of view. But feel free to edit it any which way.
Frank.. I found this statement in another article here... and now can not remember which one. I do not think it was sourced in the other article either except in context... and by wiki art.links.. For that reason I knew it would probably be an issue... because of lack of citation. . The only thing I changed in that part was to wiki article link the word physiocrats which I don't think was in this article (that physiocrats article link). So... I can see someone removing this information ... but.. if someone will take the time to track this down... and it can be cited, I assume, since it is in another article here... it would seem that the information and content can be expanded. Maybe someone could page through the section of Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought Murray Rothbard and find the exact thing to make a citation with. I am not really that familiar with Rothbard... maybe the Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought is available online to make a citation with... if it is, myself or someone could make the citation specific, or quote the chapter were he said it. I will try to find the article here on wiki, where I found the info again... or maybe .. probably, someone editing here, knows which one it is... and can check for further info. in it. If the information is wrong... which I doubt... then that other article is also wrong. I will look for the other article again. Ok I am on the trail of this.
Most famously, Rothbard demonstrated that Adam Smith's economic theories were, in many ways, a comedown from his predecessors in France and Spain. For example, Smith puzzled over the source of value and finally tagged labor as the source (a mistake Marx built on). But for centuries prior, the earliest economists knew that value came from within the human mind. It was a human estimation, not an objective construct.
When these volumes first appeared, they were celebrated in Barron's and by top scholars around the world. They succeeded in changing the way people think about economic doctrine: the beginnings (not Adam Smith, but the Spanish theologians), the dead ends (Marx), the great triumphs (Bastiat, for example), and the truly great minds (Turgot and many others he rescued from near obscurity).
http://www.mises.org/store/Austrian-Perspective-on-the-History-of-Economic-Thought-2-volume-set-P273C0.aspx?AFID=14
Another lead
Instead of subjective value, entrepreneurship, and emphasis on real market pricing and market activity, Smith dropped all this and replaced it with a labor theory of value and a dominant focus on the unchanging long-run "natural price" equilibrium, a world where entrepreneurship was assumed out of existence. Under Ricardo, this unfortunate shift in focus was intensified and systematized.
If Smith was not the creator of economic theory, neither was he the founder of laissez faire in political economy. Not only were the Scholastics analysts of, and believers in, the free market and critics of government intervention, but the French and Italian economists of the eighteenth century were even more laissez-faire-oriented than Smith, who introduced numerous waffles and qualifications into what had been, in the hands of Turgot and others, an almost pure championing of laissez faire. It turns out that, rather than someone who should be venerated as creator of modern economics or of laissez faire, Smith was closer to the picture portrayed by Paul Douglas in the 1926 Chicago commemoration of the Wealth of Nations: a necessary precursor of Karl Marx. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard105.html skip sievert (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that this article has (finally) been nominated and reviewed for GAN. Congratulations to everyone involved! I should have come back here sooner but I guess it's better to be late than never! Anyways, I'm here now and will be glad to help out with this effort. Great work everyone! Gary King (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Legacy section part 2.

Included this information in the legacy section which perhaps could be edited down in content... however it may get at the basic argument as is of presenting a well rounded view of Smith..

Start

However, in his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard argued that Joseph A. Schumpeter was able, for virtually the first time, to cast a cold and realistic eye upon the celebrated Smith. Schumpeter generally denigrated Smith's contribution, and essentially held that Smith had shunted economics off on a wrong road, a road unfortunately different from that of his continental forbears. Shumpeter said of Smith, The renowned economist seems to have had no inkling of the Industrial Revolution going on all about him. Rothbard went on to say, since Schumpeter, historians of economic thought have largely retreated to a fallback position, continues Rothbard, Smith, it is conceded, created nothing, but he was the great synthesizer and systematizer, the first one to take up all the threads of his predecessors and weave them together into a coherent and systematic framework, Smith's work was the reverse of coherent and systematic, and Ricardo and Say, his two major disciples, each set themselves the task of forging such a coherent system out of the Smithian muddle, and, while it is true that pre-Smithian writings were incisive but sparse (Turgot) or embedded in moral philosophy (Hutcheson), it is also true that there were two general treatises on economics per se before the Wealth of Nations. One was Cantillon's great Essai which, after Smith, fell into grievous neglect, to be rescued a century later by Jevons; the other, and the first book to use political economy in its title, was Sir James Steuart's (1712-80) outdated two-volume work, Principles of Political Oeconomy (1767). [3] link citation ... from http://mises.org/story/2012

End - skip sievert (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I have a copy of History of Economic Analysis in my hands and that isn't a fair judgment. I don't think it is good for the article to treat the Austrian criticism of smith with that much space. Schumpeter did comment that there were many antecedents to Smith and he also made the fair comment that smith got the level of sophistication "just right" in Wealth of Nations, but he spent dozens of pages on him and his contributions. Even for Schumpeter (someone who was not enamored with the neoclassical/classical school), there wasn't a whole lot of criticism. Go check out the Schumpeter book from the library, there is some better criticism there. Protonk (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Also. Please only mark edits as minor when they meet the definition of a minor edit. I keep all edits on my watchlist, but other editors may not. Protonk (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
While it may not seem fair... it is a generally accepted way of looking at Smith. I can pare down the information, if it seems to strongly phrased, or feel free to do so... but the information is what it is, and Rothbard from what I can tell... is a very well respected historian of economics. It does not glamorize Smith for sure... but is not really all that negative either.. but it may provide some balance as to other views and commonly held views of Smith. That section could probably be shortened as said and still get the info. across. I would not have hit the minor edit thing... if I had remembered not to. skip sievert (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, fair or no, Rothbard is mischaracterizing Schumpeter's view of Smith. You are right that some criticism of Smith and his Legacy is needed, but we should steer clear of having the prose repeat the views of a prominent historian from the Austrian school. I suggest a few things:
  1. Read Blaug (the article I linked on your talk page). That is a fairly neutral (from an econ school standpoint) and cogent criticism of smith that belongs in the article.
  2. Find a better source than the Mises institute.
  3. Tone down the obvious praise for relatively obscure essays prior to smith and the pretty blunt criticism of Smith above. That criticism applies neatly if we adopt the POV of the Austrian school. It does less so for a general reader.
  4. Finally, please remove the change until you have some consensus on the talk page. I'm not going to edit war to keep it down but I would rather you seek some discussion here before changing it. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Pared down the info and made it less dramatic...
In his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard argued that Smith was the great synthesizer and systematizer, the first one to take up all the threads of his predecessors and weave them together into a coherent and systematic framework. He goes on to say that Smith's work was the reverse of coherent and systematic, and Ricardo and Say, his two major disciples, each set themselves the task of forging such a coherent system from Smiths work. It is also true that there were two general treatises on economics per se before the Wealth of Nations. One was Cantillon's great Essai which, after Smith, fell into grievous neglect, to be rescued a century later by Jevons; the other, and the first book to use political economy in its title, was Sir James Steuart's (1712-80) outdated two-volume work, Principles of Political Oeconomy (1767).

[4] ::::EconomicEnd

Notes

  1. ^ Hart 1989
  2. ^ Pressman, Steven (1999). Fifty Major Economists. Routledge, 20. ISBN 0415134811. 
  3. ^ http://mises.org/story/2012 Chapter 16 of An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Vol. I and II
  4. ^ http://mises.org/story/2012 Chapter 16 of An Austrian Perspective on the History of

Further discussion

I really think some form of this interesting perspective should be here. Rather than just dumping the information could it just be edited and not a whole sale revert. The information is very interesting and brings more depth and perspective to the article.
#Find a better source than the Mises institute. How come? I am not a fan of theirs... or would ever promote them in any way. They are hosting information of a quote from a book that is unconnected with them as to content. Rothbard seems to be a highly respected author on economics. My impression, from not really having read him before.. is that he is a in depth analyst --- whether one agrees or not with him... Let me pare the info a little more... to size it down. Again this perspective seems like a real comparative aspect on Smith. Why not help edit this perspective also Protonk? I am just putting it out there also for others to do that. skip sievert (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to answer this one. The mises instutite, much like the New School, does a great job hosting information and quotes and "cite where you got it" is an appropriate admonition here. BUT, the institute itself is a pretty POV source, so information from there (even quotes) will be scrutinized. Since this article is likely to eventually pass GA and move to FAC, that source would have to be changed (probably to the original book) in order for it to be passed. So adding it now just means removing it later, assuming that another source exists for the material or idea in general. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(oudent) As for not helping, I've made enough edits here to not be comfortable passing it to GA should I make too many more. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is not my favorite article to work on. The information I got it on.. is only an excerpt of the book... I would think that then would pass scrutiny. Any one can source the statement now. It is just info. from the Rothbard book... and that is all it is. I can look around for another source or someone else could find it I think, that would not contain the baggage... if that is what it is. On the article previously things are sourced by that site.
I scaled it down again to In his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard argued that Smith was the great synthesizer and systematizer, the first one to take up all the threads of his predecessors and weave them together into a coherent and systematic framework. He goes on to say that Smith's work was the reverse of coherent and systematic, and Ricardo and Say, his two major disciples, each set themselves the task of forging such a coherent system from Smiths work. I am not trying to make the information inflammatory. Just get the different perspective across, which Rothbard seems very talented on multi side perspective. Do you think it would be better to leave the Mises citation off... and just look for another... using the book text?? as that one does? Is there a complete copy or other good source of Rothbards books that would work just as well probably. The mises citation link is expendable. The only reason I used that one is because it was handy and was quoted material to Rothbards book. skip sievert (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the Mises citation and made this other one Murray N. Rothbard, An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Chapter 16 Vol. I and II. Edward Elgar Publishing. February 1995. ISBN 1-85278-962-X. skip sievert (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Legacy section

Added this to the legacy section. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776) discusses the benefits of the division of labour. Smith noted that an individual should invest a resource, for example, land or labour, so as to earn the highest possible return on it. Consequently, all uses of the resource should yield an equal rate of return (adjusted for the relative riskiness of each enterprise). Otherwise reallocation would result. This idea, wrote George Stigler, is the central proposition of economic theory, and is today called the marginal productivity theory of income distribution. French economist Turgot had made the same point in 1766. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Smith.html Adam Smith, Biography: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Library of Economics and Liberty.

Value theory was important in classical theory. Smith wrote that the "real price of every thing ... is the toil and trouble of acquiring it" as influenced by its scarcity. Smith maintained that, with rent and profit, other costs besides wages also enter the price of a commodity.[1] Other classical economists presented variations on Smith, termed the 'labour theory of value'. Classical economics focused on the tendency of markets to move to long-run equilibrium. skip sievert (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about these paragraphs in the legacy section. It looks like they would better fit in the section about The Wealth of Nations. Can you try rephrasing the two paragraphs to more explicitly discuss his legacy with respect to the information you added? -FrankTobia (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I can try... or you can. I tried to touch on things not already mentioned in the Wealth of Nations section... but connected with an over view of Smith. I tried to keep the info. as simple as possible. These were over arching things connected with Smith (legacy) aspects... I don't think the article directly mentioned 'labour theory of value' in a context before... and that seems like vital information (legacy). The little Smith quote also about what he called the "real price of every thing ... is the toil and trouble of acquiring it" as influenced by its scarcity... I do not think that was in the article and it is another legacy thing as to where Smith was conceptualizing from. Also just a bit of context info... as to legacy seems appropriate... since the article makes the claim... true or untrue at least a couple of times about father hood and by putting Smith a little more in context with his surroundings and contemporaries, these paragraphs may balance that out a little more. Mentioning Wealth of Nations in the legacy section a few times could make sense... because of the over arching impact of it... and it is the thing he is identified with as to legacy.... and its contents are the main context for the article in the sense that as his so called Magnum Opus it really is the context Smith is viewed through, mostly. skip sievert (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Changed this paragraph which was a little conflicted in the information before... and I think makes more sense now in relation to the actual citation.

Start

In his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard argues that historians of economic thought have largely retreated to a fallback position on Smith and his accomplishments, Rothbard contends that Smith created nothing, and was not the great synthesizer and systematizer as claimed by many. He goes on to say that Smith's work was the reverse of coherent and systematic, and Ricardo and Say, his two major disciples, each set themselves the task of forging such a coherent system from Smiths work. [2]

End

Here is the page from the book used for sourcing http://mises.org/story/2012 in the article citation itself .... just the connector to the book was used (Isbn #)... and not the actual text of the mises article, as I understand that Austrian source sites are not exactly smiled on currently or seen as over weighted by some... It may be better to source this with the actual copy of Rothbards book chapter though if any one has an online source of it, that does not carry baggage as to who is posting it. skip sievert (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no justification for including this stuff. Rothbard is not a major figure in Smith scholarship and his remarks here are self-contradictory. If he neither created anything nor systematized existing work, what could he have left for his disciples. But the main point is WP:WEIGHT. There is no justification for filling Wikipedia with Rothbard fancruft.JQ (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not a fan of Rothbard. He was very clever though in explaining his ideas about Smith which many outside his so called group (which I am not connected to in any way), could easily agree with... so no this is not planted Austrian economic information by a fan... far from it. By removing the information you may be making this merely more of a fan site for Smith... mostly, without any critical or intellectual teeth. Rothbard explained his ideas and the whys and what fors of his sentiments and did a good job. What do you mean his remarks are self-contradictory? Did you read the page? What example are you talking about? This is not about Rothbard fancruft... it is about providing some much needed critical information as to Smith in the article. I strongly disagree with your opinion of fancruft being implanted.. to some other purpose... the purpose, unrelated to fancruft, is illumining Smith, what the article is supposed to do.
Also... it seems to me you misread the quoted page Since Schumpeter, historians of economic thought have largely retreated to a fallback position. Smith, it is conceded, created nothing, but he was the great synthesizer and systematizer, the first one to take up all the threads of his predecessors and weave them together into a coherent and systematic framework. (Now Rothbards voice) But Smith's work was the reverse of coherent and systematic, and Ricardo and Say, his two major disciples, each set themselves the task of forging such a coherent system out of the Smithian muddle.
Info. as to page edit citation http://mises.org/story/2012
That is not contradictory as you say above in your edit or critique of the information. Rothbard is making a point about other historians it is not his point... this is a fine point... or the information has to be carefully read and it took me a little to understand also in the context, he is writing it, and that he is drawing out a point with. skip sievert (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
But his argument that Rothbard isn't a Smith scholar stands. I also feel that Rothbard's criticism doesn't work well in the article without a rebuttal. This author is basically saying "smith messed up our understanding of economics so much that it took two great 19th century economists to put it back together again. The quote also includes a misrepresentation of Schumpeter. Rothbard suggests that Schumpeter says smith did nothing but collect and condense prior knowledge for a mid-level audience and that isn't the case. Schumpeter takes pains to note that Wealth of Nations wasn't a work of high theory (so that part is correct) but points out that this explains the impact of it. Prior works of sufficient sophistication were too philosophical or obtuse to reach policymakers and lecturers. Schumpeter also spends about 1/3 of his book explaining about the spotty transmission of knowledge between schools and over time in economics. turgot and petty and other's didn't publish in an era where all scholars were aware of all works. Some advances were made and forgotten (or relegated to a small group of followers). Some were remembered and misused. Some were advanced only partially. To say that Smith only synthesised and systematized this mix of ideas is non-sensical. We can argue quite strongly that Smith drew from Hume and the physiocrats. We can argue weakly that Smith drew from Petty and other statisticians. The strength of the argument evaporates entirely if we attempt to claim that the wealth of nations was primarily a derivative work. That's why Schumpeter doesn't make that claim. As for rothbard's second claim, the reason it is contradictory is because it only makes sense in light of the first claim. In other words, look at:

Smith's work was the reverse of coherent and systematic, and Ricardo and Say, his two major disciples, each set themselves the task of forging such a coherent system out of the Smithian muddle.

Absent some claim that smith set out to build a complete system, this claim is meaningless. Just like you point out (correctly) above, Smith didn't invent the notion of Walrassian equlibrium, although we often informally ascribe it to him. To say "Smith failed to describe how markets in perfect competition would come to an equilibirum and Walras had to clean up the mess later" is a coutnerfactual statement, but it sounds pretty meaningful if you don't think about it too much. We can't peer into Smith's mind to see what he set out to do with Wealth of Nations, but before we endorse broad claims of failure from a historian with an axe to grind, we should see if they make sense. In this case, they don't. Protonk (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Who is claiming that Smith set out to build a complete system? Not the article by Rothbard... he mentions that Smith was a shameless copy cat of others. So I fail to see your point. As far as coutnerfactual statements... you may have to explain that. I do not follow. Peering into Smiths head? Not the purpose of citing a critical opinion of Smith. Broad claims about failure? Rothbards commentary is not just that... he explains in context what he is claiming... and very cleverly. Ax to grind? It may seem that way to you... but as someone who did not know Rothbard from Adam ... a few days ago... I think you may be wrong.. and assuming Rothbard was not a vindictive ideologue maybe in order. He seems right on in most of his estimation of Smith to me... Smith lack of connection to the industrial revolution etc... this is just fact. Rothbard not being a Smith scholar? So? He is a economics scholar... and not every scholar that wrote about Smith was giving accurate information. As an over view person ...who perhaps had some biases this Rothbard person was an excellent writer that apparently is very popular. He decidedly did a good job of breaking down Smith... especially Smiths seeming lack of understanding or noticing the Industrial revolution going on around him. skip sievert (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
you are missing the forest for the trees. You are basically suggesting that we insert, without rebuttal, the opinion of an economic scholar that Adam Smith is responsible for nothing and merely copied previous work and muddled everything up for later scholars. I am saying that isn't going to fly. The Rothbard quote has been pared down (enough to remove the inherent contradiction I mentioned, sorry for mxing up two quotes) so that we don't see rothbard's POV, which is that he has a bone to pick with Smith's definition of 'value'. What I am saying is that the quote should be removed from the article until we can find some way to express it neutrally. As it stands we have the article itself, presenting smith in a relatively mainstream fashion, and then this enormous outlier which effectively announces that the rest of the points made in the article are blatantly false. There are kernels of truth in what Rothbard is saying. I'm not happy with the article summarizing him in whole, uncritically. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok... I reformulated it... and now it may be good to that purpose.. plus got in the other critical information that is repeated by many about Smith. His lack of understanding the significance of the Industrial revolution

Start

In his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard argues that historians of economic thought have largely retreated to a fallback position on Smith and his accomplishments, Rothbard contends that Smith created nothing, but instead mostly collated material, and was not the great synthesizer and systematizer as claimed by many. Also (according to Rothbard), Smith seemingly failed to observe the beginning of the Industrial revolution with its effects going on around him.[3]

End

Now I think these three paragraphs probably make mention of the main contentions about Smith. This I think takes the sting out of the comment but still presents the information for what it is... a well thought out critique that hits on the main criticisms of Smith... at least the ones that seem to blatantly stick out. skip sievert (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
For the 'legacy section', we should also have some comment about how textbook authors and economists attribute the roots of Walrassian equilibrium to smith but that smith didn't really say anything about equilibrium (invisible hand comments notwithstanding). That deserves maybe a sentence. If you need a copy of the Blaug article, email me and I'll send one to you. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think I want to take on the Walrassian equalibrium aspect after looking into that a bit.. http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/walras.htm and http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/ricardian.htm but maybe John Quiqqin could look into that. skip sievert (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Without endorsing the Rothbard quote, I've tried to reorganise the legacy section so it is actually about Smith's legacy rather than a hodge-podge of summary and assessments. JQ (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I suggest that we replace Rothbard with something critical of Smith from Schumpeter who is, almost certainly, Rothbard's main source here and who was a notable economist whose opinions justify inclusion. JQ (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I already quoted Schumpeter in an earlier version and that was loudly complained about... it is further up in the talk page. Rothbard does quote Schumpeter in that chapter... so any one digging around there would find Schumpeter any way. skip sievert (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It was loudly complained about because it was rothbard quoting schumpeter and rothbard was getting it wrong. Not because schumpeter quotes/ideas weren't wanted. Protonk (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Not being a Smith fan or invested one way or the other ... except to balance a little what seemed like a paean of Smith in the article (repeating over and over about free markets... being a father... and founding capitalism..etc) I have to agree with Rothbard that Smith's book seems like a catch basin of what ever people want to ascribe to it... but yes... recite and change things. My only interest here has been to bring out the other issues of Smith or the other sides of Smith that seemed to be not being talked about or out of balance... and seems so still... after all... Smith was a complex character and deserves to be looked at from all angles. I expect to be edited mercilessly. My opinion is that is the best way to improve information. With a few people slicing and dicing... with the aim of making something clear and unbiased. skip sievert (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Gates comment

Gates comment I think is rather silly in the legacy section about Smith.

In line with such trends, Bill Gates spoke of Adam Smith's legacy at the World Economic Forum on 24 January 2008: "Adam Smith, the very father of capitalism and the author of Wealth of Nations, who believed strongly in the value of self-interest for society, opened his first book with the following lines: 'How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.

The Smith quotation is excellent and could be presented for what it is, in the legacy section with a different framing of Smiths comment... without the Gates Commentary about capitalism introducing it, which is kind of a ridiculous statement (on Gates part)... for a lot of reasons... one being the Marxists used Smiths theory of labor glorification as a rationale for Communism... that is just one thing... I could think of lots of other reasons to ditch Gates, who is gratuitously given an undeserved spot light ... introducing a very good piece of information about Smiths legacy in a kind of ridiculous (my opinion) way. The antecedents of Capitalism have been around since Sumer... there has been a working capitalism named or unnamed. So... I think this reflects poor scholarship or undeserved pointing out of opinion about what Gates thinks in the article. skip sievert (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Part two: legacy section

Added this back in... it is not overtly mentioned elsewhere... and mention of scarcity and labor theory of value is very important in Smith and the legacy section. Value theory was important in classical theory. Smith wrote that the "real price of every thing ... is the toil and trouble of acquiring it" as influenced by its scarcity. Smith maintained that, with rent and profit, other costs besides wages also enter the price of a commodity.[4] Other classical economists presented variations on Smith, termed the 'labour theory of value'. Classical economics focused on the tendency of markets to move to long-run equilibrium. skip sievert (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As Frank stated above, this seems to fit much better in the section in WoN where I put it. The labor theory of value was an important part of Smith's legacy to the classical economists and to Marx, but the idea was abandoned after the marginal revolution, so it seems confusing to mention it in the legacy section. If you want to say something about Smith's legacy in Marxist thought (I'm only conjecturing this), it would be good to do so explicitly.JQ (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You mean something like this JQ?... except paired down a lot? J.Q why would that be confusing? There is a time line that any one interested could follow. We are talking about Smiths legacy and not the marginal revolution... which probably used Smith to prove their point that Smith was wrong in their opinions. Isn't that a whole separate issue?

Marxist (later, Marxian) economics descends from classical economics. It derives from the work of Karl Marx. The first volume of Marx's major work, Capital, was published in German in 1867. In it, Marx focused on the labour theory of value and what he considered to be the exploitation of labour by capital.[5][6] The labour theory of value held that the value of a thing was determined by the labor that went into its production. This contrasts with the modern understanding that the value of a thing is determined by what one is willing to give up to obtain the thing.

A body of theory later termed 'neoclassical economics' or 'marginalism' formed from about 1870 to 1910. The term 'economics' was popularized by such neoclassical economists as Alfred Marshall as a concise synonym for 'econonic science' and a substitute for the earlier, broader term 'political economy'.[7][8] This correspnded to the influence on the subject of mathematical methods used in the natural sciences.[9] Neoclassical economics systematized supply and demand as joint determinants of price and quantity in market equilibrium, affecting both the allocation of output and the distribution of income. It dispensed with the labour theory of value inherited from classical economics in favor of a marginal utility theory of value on the demand side and a more general theory of costs on the supply side.[10]

Smith should not be just exalted in the article as the father of economics and free markets... as he was the father of communism also. Correct? skip sievert (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The paragraphs above dont' have anything to do with smith and aren't referencing sources that show smith's connection to these ideas. The article now asserts that smith was responsible for the labor theory of value then moves on (independently) to talk about the labor theory of value and its connection to marginalism and marxism. The "political economy" vs. "economics" bit has some use but I'm sure some secondary sources (rather than writings at the time) can be used to establish some kind of timeline for the use of the term. The rest of this is pretty tenuously connected. Protonk (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Tenuous? J.Q. suggested mentioning Marx's connection with Smith... this is a main part of Smith's legacy is it not? and it is well established that Marx took up Smith's ideas on labor theory... which is a main part of the glorification of toil the Marx also got wrong... because of the industrial revolution changing all that while he was writing and really changing it shortly after. Also, it kind of explains the eventual change of one focus to another as to mainstream economics... from political economy of Smith to neoclassical economics.

Any suggestions for editing this further into a different scaled down version ?

Start

Classical economists presented variations on Smith, termed the 'labour theory of value', later Marxian economics descends from classical economics also using Smith's labor theories in part. The first volume of Marx's major work, Capital, was published in German in 1867. In it, Marx focused on the labour theory of value and what he considered to be the exploitation of labour by capital.[5][11] The labour theory of value held that the value of a thing was determined by the labor that went into its production. This contrasts with the modern understanding of mainstream economics, that the value of a thing is determined by what one is willing to give up to obtain the thing. Ironically Smith is often cited for being the conceptual builder of free markets in Capitalism, and also cited as a main contributor to Communist theory, via Marx.

A body of theory later termed 'neoclassical economics' or 'marginalism' formed from about 1870 to 1910. The term 'economics' was popularized by such neoclassical economists as Alfred Marshall as a concise synonym for 'economic science' and a substitute for the earlier, broader term 'political economy' used by Smith.[12][13] This corresponded to the influence on the subject of mathematical methods used in the natural sciences.[9] Neoclassical economics systematized supply and demand as joint determinants of price and quantity in market equilibrium, affecting both the allocation of output and the distribution of income. It dispensed with the labour theory of value of which Smith was most famously identified with in classical economics, in favor of a marginal utility theory of value on the demand side and a more general theory of costs on the supply side.[14]

End skip sievert (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm suggesting that we find and include a reliable, mainstream source that says "Smith's idea of the labor theory of value influenced marx." or something to that effect. It sets off warning bells when I see secondary sources used for definitions of things and primary sources used for connections between concepts. IF the only connection is that we say smith presented a labor theory of value, marx presented a labor theory of value, therefore smith and marx are related, it is a non-starter. Protonk (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and replace any citations with better ones. Since it seems the information is correct though, the sourcing citations, could be improved. That would no doubt change the language of how the ideas are presented also. skip sievert (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think there are a couple of problems with the section on value theory. Any discussion of this that includes Marx and Smith should also make mention of Ricardo who also had a labour theory of value and was chronologically in between Smith and Marx. Also the statement 'Ironically Smith is often cited for being the conceptual builder of free markets in Capitalism, and also cited as a main contributor to Communist theory, via Marx.' is I think incorrect. Marx's Capital was an analysis of the mechanisms of capitalism, not communism. In fact Marx wrote very little on communism, so to describe his work as 'communist theory' is incorrect. I do think that it is important to mention Adam Smith's theory of value though. It is a central element of his work and is in strong contrast to the more modern neo-classical theories that he is often cited as the forefather of. Neo-classical theory is built around a marginalist concept of value. I don't think it is incorrect to mention Marx in the article, but I think it should be in the context of a wider discussion of Classical Political Economy, and this should include Smith, Ricardo, Marx and possible Malthus and John Stewart Mill as well.Jomichell (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adam_Smith"

No comments have been added.



Your name:

City:

Country:

Your comments:

Security check *
(Please enter the number into adjoining box)

 

  • Ads

           
eXTReMe Tracker