A lot of what I've read suggests that on the "horizontal" dimension, Smith leaned a bit toward 20th century liberalism (e.g., anti-trust) rather than being a pure proponent of 19th century liberalism (i.e., _laissez faire_). But on the vertical -- class -- dimension, it's clear to me that he was pretty conservative, not having any respect for the working poor, for example. He also saw little difference between the craft workers and their "masters." This reflects the conditions of his time and place, where mobility between being an employee and an employer went both ways (sort of like in some sectors of construction in the US until recently). But people often assume that this part of Smith's view still applies, which is a mistake. (Any correction of my impressions about Smith would be appreciated.)
Michael Meeropol wrote: > Dear Penners and URPR's: > > I was impressed with the open letter to Greg Mankiw that a number of > students in his ECON 10 course posted. In the letter they asserted that > Mankiw privileges Adam Smith over John Maynard Keynes - > > I would argue that Mankiw distorts SMith --- In his 1998 Principles textbook > (don't have a recent edition in front of me) on p. 145 Mankiw discusses the > "invisible hand" concept by running together Smith's discussion of the > "self-interest" of the butcher, the baker and the grocer (from Book I of the > Wealth of Nations with some words (not all) from the only reference to the > invisible hand (from Book IV of TWON). > > In fact when read carefully in context, Smith's use of the invisible hand is > to show that the NATURAL FORCES of the market lead businesses to PREFER > domestic investment to foreign investment -- thus MERCANTILISM was > UNNECESSARY --- but the goals (maximum domestic employment) was for Smith > the most important cause of "The Wealth of Nations..." > > I referenced Mankiw's misbehavior briefly in my article (now on the PERI web > site "A Neo-Liberal Distortion of Adam .mith: THe Case of the Invisible > Hand" > http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_51-100/WP79.pdf > > but it would be great if I could be directly in touch with students who are > interested in starting a dialogue on the Harvard campus (and beyond) about > the neoclassical biases (sometimes outright distortions) in "mainstream" > economics courses. > > Please respond personally to me at > > [email protected] > > HOORAY FOR STUDENTS WHO REFUSE TO TAKE ECON PROFESSORS AS GOSPEL > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Jim Devine / "In an ugly and unhappy world the richest man can purchase nothing but ugliness and unhappiness." -- George Bernard Shaw _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
