RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left

["Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>]

I agree that characterization of Smith as populist seems peculiar to me.


That said, I think many other characterizations of Smith are also wrong.

Advocating markets in the 18th c., when the fetters of euro-feudal life
were still in force strongly, and advocating markets in the late 20th
c., are two very different things.

But I understand that Max is interested in characterizations of Nader
and not Smith, though his crack about 'dead economists' misses the point
that many of us are interested in the writers of the past because we
believe the issues they raised, and even debates about how we are to
understand them, are relevant to the current political economy.

I'm not interested in history of thought like admiring antique furniture
or whatever--I'm interested in the ideas, and unlike most economists
today I don't assume that whatever is more recent is better.

Mat

-----Original Message-----
From: Max Sawicky [mailto:sawicky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 1:30 PM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [PEN-L:24586] RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left

I appreciate the elaboration on Smith's moral philosophy,
but the context of this discussion was whether Nader
and populists were more like Smith than not.
My clipped summary of Smith emphasized the
contrast.  No embroidery of Smith's moral thought
can find any contact with the basic thrust of political
populism, either 19th century style or Naderite.  Restoring
or creating fair market competition is not the most pressing
theme in Nader's repertory, though it is not absent either.
We should be at least as interested in accurately gauging
current political trends as we are in rehabilitating dead
economists.

mbs


> Unfortunatetly, quoting of the "butcher and baker" passage out of
> context is exactly what the 1980s Adam Smith tie-wearing Reaganite
> Gordon "Greed is Good" Gekko types did to promote the idea of Smith as
> an unabashed promoter of self-interest.  . . .