Comments on: Adam Smith’s Lost Legacy http://www.effor.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/27/adam-smiths-lost-legacy Rambling rants from the lunatic fringe Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:50:36 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Gary http://www.effor.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/27/adam-smiths-lost-legacy/comment-page-1#comment-639 Gary Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:52:07 +0000 http://www.effor.com/blog/?p=721#comment-639 I appreciate your thoughtful reply Mr. Kennedy, even though I still disagree with your conclusions. I also read your longer post at: http://adamsmithslostlegacy.com/2009/02/reply-to-commentator.html and your paper at: http://adamsmithslostlegacy.com/Articles_07.htm If anyone (besides myself and Mr. Kennedy) is interested, they can read my response at: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11437041&postID=5221969189416634405 gk I appreciate your thoughtful reply Mr. Kennedy, even though I still disagree with your conclusions. I also read your longer post at:
http://adamsmithslostlegacy.com/2009/02/reply-to-commentator.html and your paper at:
http://adamsmithslostlegacy.com/Articles_07.htm

If anyone (besides myself and Mr. Kennedy) is interested, they can read my response at:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11437041&postID=5221969189416634405

gk

]]> By: Gavin Kennedy http://www.effor.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/27/adam-smiths-lost-legacy/comment-page-1#comment-635 Gavin Kennedy Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:53 +0000 http://www.effor.com/blog/?p=721#comment-635 I have responded to your post's main ideas on my web site, without wishing to start an inteperate exchange. My hope is that this clarifies the historical facts about Adam Smith's use (only once in Wealth Of Nations) of the popular 18th-century literary metaphor (details in the post) of an 'invisible hand', which has nothing to do with markets, and the modern use of the metaphor which from the 1950s became a 'theory' that there was something mystical about how markets work. The confusion between these historical facts, and modern economists' misrepresentation that their use of the metaphor had anything to do with Adam Smith, is the source of much misunderstanding. It is important because beliefs about mystical forces in markets lead people today to assert false ideas that any action of people in markets - even polution, fraudulent monopoly pricing and unsafe products, etc., - is somehow beneficial to the public good. If modern ecopnomists wish to believe such alien ideas that is their right; they have no right to attribute them to Adam Smith to give them authority. Smith explained how markets worked and didn't use an invisible hand metaphor to do so, and he asserted, correctly, that markets were better ways to manage production and distribution than governments, with the proviso of liberty, the rule of law (including punishment of offenders), and competition, summed up as markets were preferred where possible, government where necessary. I have responded to your post’s main ideas on my web site, without wishing to start an inteperate exchange. My hope is that this clarifies the historical facts about Adam Smith’s use (only once in Wealth Of Nations) of the popular 18th-century literary metaphor (details in the post) of an ‘invisible hand’, which has nothing to do with markets, and the modern use of the metaphor which from the 1950s became a ‘theory’ that there was something mystical about how markets work.

The confusion between these historical facts, and modern economists’ misrepresentation that their use of the metaphor had anything to do with Adam Smith, is the source of much misunderstanding. It is important because beliefs about mystical forces in markets lead people today to assert false ideas that any action of people in markets – even polution, fraudulent monopoly pricing and unsafe products, etc., – is somehow beneficial to the public good.

If modern ecopnomists wish to believe such alien ideas that is their right; they have no right to attribute them to Adam Smith to give them authority.

Smith explained how markets worked and didn’t use an invisible hand metaphor to do so, and he asserted, correctly, that markets were better ways to manage production and distribution than governments, with the proviso of liberty, the rule of law (including punishment of offenders), and competition, summed up as markets were preferred where possible, government where necessary.

]]>