Jump to content

Talk:Adam Smith/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

"he relinquished his exhibition"

Could someone please tell me what this means?

and he relinquished his exhibition in 1746.

Thanks. -- Viajero 18:09, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It means that he gave up his scholarship at Oxford and left the university. I think that, technically, at Oxford, an "exhibition" is a somewhat less generous grant to a student than a "scholarship." But it's the same idea. -- Eb.hoop 11:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Brits for or against mercantilism?

This reads inconsistently:

When the book, which has become a classic manifesto against mercantilism, appeared in 1776, there was a strong sentiment for free trade in both Britain and America. This new feeling had been born out of the economic hardships and poverty caused by the war. However, at the time of publication, not everybody was convinced of the advantages of free trade right away: the British public and Parliament still clung to mercantilism for many years to come. [italics mine]

Were the British public for or against mercantilism? -- Viajero 18:16, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think that the answer is "Both". The Public, American or British, are generally for free trade where they think it doesn't harm them, and for mercantilism, particularly its protectionist aspect where they think that it benefits them. For examples take a look at the historical UK Corn laws or the present day US/Canadian softwood lumber dispute, the US/Vietnamese catfish saga or the current debate about IT outsourcing to India, where the "Public" have been or are divided over the merits of free trade versus protectionism. -- Derek Ross | Talk

Quotes

I copied the quotes to Wikiquote. Perhaps we dont need the quote section here on Wikipedia now, or at least - not to that extent? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:12, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. Of course, others may not agree with my choices, but oh well. Brutannica 01:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Theory of Moral Sentiments

There is some material on this in the Biography section. Shouldn't it be moved down to the Works section? Brutannica 01:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Adam Smith was a philosopher through and through! He was known as such throughout the 1700's long before the popularity of his Wealth of Nations took over. Smith's 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments was not a one-time folly, abandoned after the Wealth of Nations in 1776. Smith worked on new editions of both books continually up till the 1790's. I encourage anyone interested to read Dr. James Otteson's 2004 book, Adam Smith's Market Place of Life. Otteson goes to great lengths explaining exactly how Smith saw the interaction of communities; and how individuals naturally and spontaneously build up codes of bahavior and morals. Only later did Smith extrapolate that theory into economic realities and principles. To look at Smith simply as an economist is to regard him only as half the man he really was. I have yet to see biographies or fans of Smith who have dared to fully understand both facets of this influential man. User:Eltharian, 19 March 2006

eh TMS was trash

NPOV ... what today is considered capitalism...

The last edit by 146.151.30.214 doesn't seem to respect NPOV. I'm not sure whether everyone considers corporate structure, government run by business interests, and economic emphasis on business rather than on workers as today's capitalism. But there is some valid point (not rechecked by me, tough) in mentioning that Smith never used the term capitalism...

It also does make sense to show differences between Smiths thoughts and some of his followers. I guess this is what the editor did intend. But this doesn't belong to the very first paragraph.

Here's the bigger part of the change.

It is often cited by pro-capitalist ideologies as helping to create the modern academic discipline of economics and providing one of the best-known intellectual rationales for capitalism. However, Smith never used the term capitalism in any of his works as it did not exist in his time, and in fact opposed much of what today is considered capitalism, such as the corporate structure, government run by business interests, and economic emphasis on business rather than on workers.

Could someone with more Smith knowledge than me, make this into its own sub-section? I will revert this change in a few days if it is still there...

I deleted then statement that Marx agreed with the iron law of wages as this is incorrect. The Iron law of wages states workers wages will equal the physical subsistence, Marx on the other hand said wages would equal "social subsistence" - social subsistence can be considerably different than physical subsistence.

No, it was the same thing. I wasn't the original editor, but it's true. Also, Adam Smith was against corporations. He was describing a world that is very different than ours. But he was opposed to "joint stock companies", or what we call, corporations, and feared they would become "personified" or become permanent which is exactly what happened in the 19th century with the creation of corporate power by the judiciary turning them into immortal persons.

Problem with invisible hand

I will delete the following passage, recently added by Wk_muriithi:

Even if it was possible to impose the implicit moral contract discussed above, it is unlikely that Adam Smith theory would ever work. This is because invisible hand only work in a perfect market, a condation that has never occured and will never occur. Some of the problem that makes the market imperfect are:-
  • Information asymmetry - Its impossible for example, for even sophisticated buyer to be all knowing even where there is reasonable competition. A good real life example of this is in microprocessor market. Corporations can be assumed to be sophisticated buyers and are the main consumers of microprocessors. Despite this, Intel has been able to sell its inferior microprocessors at a higher price than its competitor, AMD.
  • Natural monopoly - Some business like telecommunication, utility (water and power) railway are natural monopoly. Markets tend to badly at it. Witness the electricity fisco in USA sometimes back.
  • Externality - Business tend to produce too much negative externalities (eg pollution) and too little positive externalities (eg research). Adam Smith argument ignore this facts and his theory is therefore not sustainable.

Aside from problems with the grammar and the POV tone of the proposed addition, nowhere in WoN does Smith posit a perfect market. His work is largely descriptive, studying how markets had historically worked in Europe and elsewhere. The famous "invisible hand" in WoN refers primarily to the observation that there is an unplanned connection between specialization/trade and the creation of wealth. I suspect that the author of this passage has limited first-hand knowledge of what Smith actually says in his book. For a recent critique of the common, incorrect use of the term "invisible hand" by free-trade critics, see Vernon Smith, "Human Nature: An Economic Perspective," Daedalus, pp. 67-76, Fall 2004. - Eb.hoop 15 Jun 2005, 15:45 (UTC).

I concede that i am a tad too opinionated and my spelling leave a lot to be desired. I am however surprised that you seem to be asserting "invisible hand" has nothing to do with pricing. I quote from the article
One of the main points of The Wealth of Nations is that the free market, while appearing chaotic and unrestrained, is actually guided to produce the right amount and variety of goods by a so-called "invisible hand." If a product shortage occurs, for instance, its price rises, creating incentive for its production, and eventually curing the shortage. The increased competition among manufacturers and increased supply would also lower the price of the product to its production cost, the "natural price."
Boy, that sound to me like the supply - demand curves i see a lot in economics books. The curves attempt to demonstrate how market achieve optimal price. Are you for real when saying this has something to do with specialization? Would you be more specific on your understanding of what of what "invisible hand means? And if your assertion is true, don't you think the above paragraph is misleading and should be fixed? Can someone comment on this?
I agree that the paragraph from the article you quote is misleading. In WoN, the "invisible hand" refers generally to the fact that the people participating in a free market system achieve results for themselves and for society that are never part of their conscious motives. The price mechanism is one aspect of this general phenomenon, but it is not the only one, or even the most important in Smith's thinking. Smith's central point in WoN is that specialization and division of labor dramatically increase productivity and are the source of all wealth. Specialization is possible only if trade allows people to exchange what they specialize in making (e.g., pins) for everything else they need (e.g., food).
Here's the relevant quote from Vernon Smith's article: When Smith uses the metaphor of the invisible hand, he is referring to the essential insight that people in markets achieve ends that are not part of their intention; i.e., people achieve more efficient arrangements induced by the specialization-exchange nexus than is possible without that nexus. The more common, inappropiate, interpretation is illustrated in the following quotations from Joseph Stiglitz: "The argument of Adam Smith ... that free markets led to efficient outcomes, 'as if by an invisible hand,' has played a central role in these [information economics] debates ... The set of ideas that I will present here undermines Smith's theory and the view of government that rested on it. They have suggested that the reason that the hand may be invisible is that it is simply no there - or at least it is palsied."
Having read WoN, I agree with Smith that the common perception (repeated by Stiglitz) that the "invisible hand" refers simply to efficient pricing is quite wrong. Smith was arguing at a far more fundamental level that people like Stiglitz are today. We tend to forget that most of what Smith writes about in WoN is now received wisdom in economics and uncontroversial even to free-market skeptics like Stiglitz. I notice that the Wikipedia article on the invisible hand does a better job that this biography of explaining what Smith was talking about. - Eb.hoop 20:38 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).
Thanks for response. I think you are in better position to understand what invisible hand means as you seem to have read WoN. I was basing my argument wholly on the above paragraph, but since you say its wrong, then my argument is consequently weak. And yeah, my skeptism on the WoN thing is heavily influenced by Stiglitz. He seem to think its bull.


POV

Smith's ideas on wealth, life and his open attitude towards his homosexuality made him one of the most ingenious men of his time.

Can we please have

1) a cite

and

2) some evidence supporting the assertion that homosexuality made Smith ingenious?

.......

I have removed this recently added section. It sounds like pure POV. Is it? Sources please: ''"Current understanding of the "free market" fails to take into account the government's critical role in maintaining a "free market economy" and preventing market distortions{{fact}}. According to Smith{{fact}} the government protects the "free market" by continually leveling the playing field{{fact}}, facilitating the free exchange of goods and services and breaking down barriers to production. It is the government's role to provide "public goods,"{{fact}} (things like a transportation system, utilities, fair trade laws) that enhances the commonwealth, yet are too inefficient or expensive to be provided by private sector. The government has other responsibilities as well, it is the government's job to ensure that no single producer -- or group of producers acting in unison -- accrue enough power or market share to artificually influence price or supply. In a true market economy, profits always hover near zero while workers are paid fairly for their productivity, since their labor is the true "Wealth of Nations.""'' --Mais oui! 06:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I nowikied the templates so that this talk page does not show up in the NPOV disputes category. -- Kjkolb 18:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


This isn't a huge point, but this sentence:
"Smith's capacity for fluent, persuasive, if rather rhetorical argument, is much in evidence."
doesn't mean a whole lot. Translating it into more straightforward English, it says, "Smith often wrote fluently and persuausively, but rhetorically." "Fluent" goes without saying, and "rhetorical" is synonymous with "persuasive." So what we're left with is "Smith wrote persuasively"--which is probably better to cut, since it's more opinion than fact.

More POV

I deleted the last sentence of the following paragraph:

Smith vigourously attacked the antiquated government restrictions which he thought were hindering industrial expansion. In fact, he attacked most forms of government interference in the economic process, including tariffs, arguing that this creates inefficiency and high prices in the long run. This theory, now referred to as "laissez-faire", influenced government legislation in later years, especially during the 19th century. However, Smith criticised a number of practices that later became associated with laissez-faire capitalism, such as the power and influence of Big Business and the emphasis on capital at the expense of labour.

What does "emphasis on capital at the expense of labour" mean? In free-market capitalism, firms allocate capital and labour to maximize profits. Is the criticism that they held too much capital at the expense of profits? Or is it that some firms under laissez-faire capitalism had attrocious working conditions and poor human rights by today's standards? The former is what's implied by the statement, though I think the latter is what's meant.

I think the statement needs both clarification and justification (sources, please) before being added again.

FRSE??

What is this "FRSE" thing at the beginning? "Adam Smith, FRSE was a ..." It doesn't even make sense in the sentence. If it's an adjective, it should have a comma after it. And if it's some kind of title, shouldn't that come later in the article?

Fellow of the Royal Society (of England?). But I don't know where it should go. Ethan Mitchell 18:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It means Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Grammatically it should be treated like any other of the profusion of British honorary acronyms (MBE, FRS, CH, KBE etc.) That probably means putting a comma after it. Tamino 08:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Tidied the paragraphs

The main article came out as a single block of text, due to "-" characters. I basically restored what was already there, without changing the text. --GwydionM 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Could expand, should I expand?

I've written a left-wing criticism of Adam Smith, entitled Adam Smith: Wealth Without Nations. I could improve the biographical details, which are incomplete. But I might be seen as biased.

Smith was sent to London under the Snell Scholarship, an interesting and complex topic in itself. His friends included James Hutton the geologist and Joseph Black the chemist and physicist. Biographers of Smith don't seem to realise how important Hutton and Black were. They do notice a half-connection to James Watt. Black had a major influence on Watt, but whether Watt and Smith ever met is unknown.

Smith's political links were considerable; Edmund Burke, Lord Shelburne, Alexander Wedderburn and Viscount Townshend. He also received his post of Commissioner of Customs from Lord North.

I have added pages about the Snell Scholarship and also the Times obituary of Adam Smith.

--GwydionM 19:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

John Rae

The John Rae (explorer) linked to in the first section is not the correct one; however, neither is this John Rae (educator). There doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia article for the John Rae that wrote Life of Adam Smith in 1895, but I don't have much information on him to hand. Whilst on my travels, however, I discovered another John Rae, the economist who wrote Statement of Some New Principles on the Subject of Political Economy. I'll add articles for both of them, and knock up a disambiguation page at John Rae rob 19:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Adam Smith Institute non-partisan?

"'The Adam Smith Institute; a world renowned non-partisan think tank based in the United Kingdom"'. We have 'Grunners' (Revision as of 11:49, 8 February 2006) to thank for this opinion.

This is perfectly ridiculous. They represent a a particular and partisan strand of New Right opinion. No doubt they regard it as 'objective truth' - so do all strong ideologues. But everyone else identifies them as New Right in the beginning and since teamed up with New Labout.

You could also question their right to the name of a man who died 200 years before they were founded.

What do other people think?

--GwydionM 17:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

PS, try Googling "Adam Smith Institute" and "Iraq". Some interesting stories. See also George Monbiot's opinion.

what?

--GwydionM 17:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Smith's religious views

Smith's background was Presbyterian, though of the moderate wing, people who felt closer to the Church of England. For most of his career he was however a Deist, and recognised as such. I'd see it as sensible to include him in both categories.

--GwydionM 14:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Adam Smith was gay?

In this edit:

[1]

The user LordRobert claims that Adam Smith was gay. I can find no corroborating source for this. Can anyone check? If this is not true, please warn LordRobert accordingly. -- ran (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Woah. Um, sorry about that. I didn't type that. :S Either my accounts been hacked or someone on my computers been using my account. Either way, I'll change that now. Thanks for bringing that to my attention Ran. Sorry about that. And for the record; Adam Smith isn't gay that I know of. :S Again, Sorry LordRobert 07:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Influence section

changed "influencing the writings of Marx and later economists." to removed Marx. as anyone who has read both knows, Marx was clearly not influenced by Smith!

I presume that's a joke! Much of Marx's Capital (and other writings) are based on Smith's (& Ricardo's) theories; Marx criticises quite a lot of Smith and Ricardo, but accepts a lot of it too. I've reinserted a link to Marx (specifically Marxian economics). For more, see Marxian economics which stresses the vital intellectual link between Smith and Marx. --Nmcmurdo 20:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Adam Smith

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

OS Date?

Why would this article have an old style date (Julian Calender). Its not even relevant to the article... - Wmgries

First / third scotsman

I am removing text which claims that Smith is the third Scotsman to feature on a Bank of England note. Firstly, this fact is uncited, and secondly, it was directly contradicted by the existing reference (the news article from the BBC News website). Nzseries1 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Adam Smith collage

should there be mention of the collage's in Leven, Kirkcaldy and Glenrothes named after him? Bencey 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Date of Baptism

There are two dates of baptism on this page, one in the main body, and one in the right sidebar.

They do no match up. One says June 5th, the other June 16th.

They should at least be consistent within this wiki page, even if the actual date isn't known. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.120.159 (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Fixed! Nzseries1 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Did Adam Smith say it?

In hundreds, perhaps thousands of sites you can read this quote attributed to the philosopher and economist Adam Smith (1723-1790):

"The robot is going to lose. Not by much. But when the final score is tallied, flesh and blood is going to beat the damn monster."
  See, e.g. http://www.quoteland.com/author.asp?AUTHOR_ID=378
        or  http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adam_smith.html

On the other hand, in many more sources you can read that the word "robot" was coined by the Czech writer128.183.218.130 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Karel Capek, in his play R.U.R (Rossum's Universal Robots) written in 1921. 

  See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_Capek

So, either Adam Smith did not say those words or Karel Capek did not coin the word "robot".

Which one is true? 

  V. Lumel, vlumel@gmail.com

Adam Smith £20 note

I've noticed that there seems to be disagreement over whether it should be mentioned that Adam Smith is depicted on the Bank of England's new £20 notes. What do people think? I think one sentence mentioning it would not be out of place. Tamino 08:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

North British

Smith was very pro-Unionist, describing himself as a "North Briton" rather than Scottish, wrote about phasing out the Scots language, the history of England and took lessons in the English language. He saw the Acts of Union 1707 as a positive socio-cultural step for the new Kingdom of Great Britain. I just saw all this on a BBC documentary, and was surprised to find that there is no mention of this in the article. Anybody familliar with this part of his life and able to contribute some text to the article? Jhamez84 01:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion - Theism versus Deism

In the text on his personal views it states that he returned to Britain as a deist and this is followed by a criticism by Ronald Coarse claiming he wasn't a Deist because its doubtful that he believed in a personal God. But the point of Deism as opposed to Theism is that a Deist believes in God but not necessarily a personal, interventionist God, more God as a distant prime-mover or an abstract principle who doesn't interfere with human affairs or the laws of the physical universe etc. So the comments attributed to Coarse don't seem to actually contradict what Smith believed in, if he was a deist. I feel I don't know enough about Adam Smith to make any intelligent changes to this myself but I thought I'd bring it up Reynardthefox 13:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sympathy & selfishness

It may be true that sympathy is a form of selfishness. The sympathetic person acts as though another person is the same as him/herself. In this way, whatever is felt by another person is considered as being felt by the sympathetic person. Therefore, any reference to another person is a reference to the sympathizer's self. Lestrade 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Mozart, a critic of Adam Smith?

Someone added Mozart to the list of critics. Now, Mozart and Adam Smith google well together, because Adam Smith was often called the Mozart of money, but I haven't found anything from Mozart criticising Smith. The only thing that vaguely looks like it, is this one: [2]. that is a blog, where some enemy of Keynesianism claims Mozart believed in the general purse disseminating money. Well, even if Mozart was a Keynesian, calling him anti-Adam Smith is simply OR (WP:SYNTH).

If this Mozart thing is not sourced, it will have to go. --Pan Gerwazy 12:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Marxists manage to wrest WP:OWNership of yet another article

The bulk of this article is a thinly veiled attempt by editors from the economic left, who have long held a stranglehold on all Wikipedia activity, to find justification for socialism in Smith's writing. A particularly tortured example is the inclusion of the third quote from TWoN, which is described as "rarely-quoted," yet somehow "critical." If it is rarely-quoted, then it is non-notable -- unless the aim of its inclusion is as I've suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is an agenda at work behind this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.62.244 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and WP:SOURCE not respected?

The article on Wealth of Nations of the same title is seriously lacking in citations. These stand out most to me, and true or not they need citation.

It is believed that this theory influenced government legislation in later years, especially during the 19th century.

Smith postulated an increase of wages with an increase in production, a view considered more accurate today.

This new feeling had been born out of the economic hardships and poverty caused by the American War of Independence.

It also has several claims that I would argue reflect anything but a neutral point of view.

Both Modern economics and, separately, Marxian economics owe significantly to classical economics.

When the book, which has become a classic manifesto against mercantilism...

Also, this may need to be explained further or removed.

Nations was so successful, in fact, that it led to the abandonment of earlier economic schools...

These merely scratch the surface, I feel, but it's a start. --Thusled (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You might add {{fact}} tags to all unsourced possibly controversial statements. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


THE BETRAYAL OF ADAM SMITH

THE BETRAYAL OF ADAM SMITH
Excerpt from
When Corporations Rule the World
2nd Edition(May 10, 2001)
by David C. Korten

(The excerpt is readily available throughout the net on dozens of sites so I assume it is not in any way shape or form an infringment of the copyright rules and regulations to re-state some of it's content in a general discussion area such as this.)


It is ironic that corporate libertarians regularly pay homage to Adam Smith as their intellectual patron saint, since it is obvious to even the most casual reader of his epic work The Wealth of Nations that Smith would have vigorously opposed most of their claims and policy positions. For example, corporate libertarians fervently oppose any restraint on corporate size or power. Smith, on the other hand, opposed any form of economic concentration on the ground that it distorts the market's natural ability to establish a price that provides a fair return on land, labor, and capital; to produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers; and to optimally allocate society's resources.

Through trade agreements, corporate libertarians press governments to provide absolute protection for the intellectual property rights of corporations. Smith was strongly opposed to trade secrets as contrary to market principles and would have vigorously opposed governments enforcing a person or corporation's claim to the right to monopolize a lifesaving drug or device and to charge whatever the market would bear.

Corporate libertarians maintain that the market turns unrestrained greed into socially optimal outcomes. Smith would be outraged by those who attribute this idea to him. He was talking about small farmers and artisans trying to get the best price for their products to provide for themselves and their families. That is self-interest, not greed. Greed is a high-paid corporate executive firing 10,000 employees and then rewarding himself with a multimillion-dollar bonus for having saved the company so much money. Greed is what the economic system being constructed by the corporate libertarians encourages and rewards. [See An Economic System Dangerously Out of Control .]

Smith strongly disliked both governments and corporations. He viewed government primarily as an instrument for extracting taxes to subsidize elites and intervening in the market to protect corporate monopolies. In his words, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. Smith never suggested that government should not intervene to set and enforce minimum social, health, worker safety, and environmental standards in the common interest or to protect the poor and nature from the rich. Given that most governments of his day were monarchies, the possibility probably never occurred to him.

The Theory of Market Economics

The theory of market economics, in contrast to free-market ideology, specifies a number of basic conditions needed for a market to set prices efficiently in the public interest. The greater the deviation from these conditions, the less socially efficient the market system becomes. Most basic is the condition that markets must be competitive. I recall the professor in my elementary economics course using the example of small wheat farmers selling to small grain millers to illustrate the idea of perfect market competition. Today, four companies--Conagra, ADM Milling, Cargill, and Pillsbury--mill nearly 60 percent of all flour produced in the United States, and two of them--Conagra and Cargill--control 50 percent of grain exports.

In the real world of unregulated markets, successful players get larger and, in many instances, use the resulting economic power to drive or buy out weaker players to gain control of even larger shares of the market. In other instances, "competitors" collude through cartels or strategic alliances to increase profits by setting market prices above the level of optimal efficiency. The larger and more collusive individual market players become, the more difficult it is for newcomers and small independent firms to survive, the more monopolisitic and less competitive the market becomes, and the more political power the biggest firms can wield to demand concessions from governments that allow them to externalize even more of their costs to the community.

Given this reality, one might expect the neoliberal economists who claim Smith's tradition as their own to be outspoken in arguing for the need to restrict mergers and acquisitions and break up monopolistic firms to restore market competition. More often, they argue exactly the opposite position--that to "compete" in today's global markets, firms must merge into larger combinations. In other words, they use a theory that assumes small firms to advocate policies that favor large firms.

Market theory also specifies that for a market to allocate efficiently, the full costs of each product must be born by the producer and be included in the selling price. Economists call it cost internalization. Externalizing some part of a product's cost to others not a party to the transaction is a form of subsidy that encourages excessive production and use of the product at the expense of others. When, for example, a forest products corporation is allowed to clear-cut government lands at giveaway prices, it lowers the cost of timber products, thus encouraging their wasteful use and discouraging their recycling. While profitable for the company and a bargain for consumers, the public is forced, without its consent, to bear a host of costs relating to water shed destruction, loss of natural habitat and recreational areas, global warming, and diminished future timber production.

The consequences are similar when a chemical corporation dumps wastes without adequate treatment, thus passing the resulting costs of air, water, and soil pollution to the community in the form of health costs, genetic deformities, discomfort, lost working days, a need to buy bottled water, and the cost of cleaning up contamination. If the users of the resulting chemical products were required to pay the full cost of their production and use, there would be a lot less chemical contamination in our environment, our food and water would be cleaner, there would be fewer cancers and genetic deformities, and we would have more frogs and songbirds. If the full cost of producing and driving cars were passed on to the consumer we would all benefit from a dramatic reduction in urban sprawl, traffic congestion, the paving over of productive lands, pollution, global warming, and depletion of finite petroleum reserves.

There is good reason why cost internalization is one of the most basic principles of market theory. Yet in the name of the market, corporate libertarians actively advocate eliminating government regulation and point to the private cost savings for consumers while ignoring the social and environmental consequences for the broader society. Indeed, in the name of being internationally competitive, corporate libertarians urge nations and communities to increase market distorting subsidies--including resource giveaways, low wage labor, lax environmental regulation, and tax breaks--to attract the jobs of footloose corporations. An unregulated market invariably encourages the externalization of costs because the resulting public costs become private gains. In the end it seems that corporate libertarians are more interested in increasing corporate profits than in defending market principles.

The larger the corporation and the "freer" the market, the greater the corporation's ability to force others to bear its costs and thereby subsidize its profits. Some call this theft. Economists call it "economies of scale."

Neva Goodwin, ecological economist, head of the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University, and an advocate of cost internalization, puts it bluntly. "Power is largely what externalities are about. What's the point of having power, if you can't use it to externalize your costs--to make them fall on someone else?"


The "invisible hand"

Corporate libertarians tirelessly inform us of the benefits of trade based on the theories of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. What they don't mention is that the benefits the trade theories predict assume the local or national ownership of capital by persons directly engaged in its management. Indeed, these same conditions are fundamental to Adam Smith's famous assertion in The Wealth of Nations that the invisible hand of the market translates the pursuit of self-interest into a public benefit. Note that the following is the only mention of the famous invisible hand in the entire 1,000 pages of The Wealth of Nations.

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he [the entrepreneur] intends only his own security, and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

Smith assumed a natural preference on the part of the entrepreneur to invest at home where he could keep a close eye on his holdings. Of course, this was long before jet travel, telephones, fax machines, and the Internet. Because local investment provides local employment and produces local goods for local consumption using local resources, the entrepreneur's natural inclination contributes to the vitality of the local economy. And because the owner and the enterprise are both local they are more readily held to local standards. Even on pure business logic, Smith firmly opposed the absentee ownership of companies.

The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own .... Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less in the management of the affairs of such a company?

Smith believed the efficient market is composed of small, owner-managed enterprises located in the communities where the owners reside. Such owners normally share in the community's values and have a personal stake in the future of both the community and the enterprise. In the global corporate economy, footloose money moves across national borders at the speed of light, society's assets are entrusted to massive corporations lacking any local or national allegiance, and management is removed from real owners by layers of investment institutions and holding companies.

It seems a common practice for corporate libertarians to justify their actions based on theories that apply only in the world that by their actions they seek to dismantle. Economist Neva Goodwin suggests that neoclassical economists have invited this distortion and misuse of economic theory by drawing narrow boundaries around their field that exclude most political and institutional reality. She characterizes the neoclassical school of economics as the political economy of Adam Smith minus the political and institutional analysis of Karl Marx:

The classical political economy of Adam Smith was a much broader, more humane subject than the economics that is taught in universities today.... For at least a century it has been virtually taboo to talk about economic power in the capitalist context; that was a communist (Marxist) idea. The concept of class was similarly banned from discussion.

Smith on power and class

Adam Smith was as acutely aware of issues of power and class as he was of the dynamics of competitive markets. However, the neoclassical economists and the neo-Marxist economists bifurcated his holistic perspective on the political economy, one taking those portions of the analysis that favored the owners of property, and the other taking those that favored the sellers of labor. Thus, the neoclassical economists left out Smith's considerations of the destructive role of power and class, and the neo-Marxists left out the beneficial functions of the market. Both advanced extremist social experiments on a massive scale that embodied a partial vision of society, with disastrous consequences.

If corporate libertarians had a serious allegiance to market principles and human rights, they would be calling for policies aimed at achieving the conditions under which markets function in a democratic fashion in the public interest. They would be calling for an end to corporate welfare, the breakup of corporate monopolies, the equitable distribution of property ownership, the internalization of social and environmental costs, local ownership, a living wage for working people, rooted capital, and a progressive tax system. Corporate libertarianism is not about creating the conditions that market theory argues will optimize the public interest, because its real concern is with private, not public, interests.

In Praise of Competitive Markets

When the necessary conditions are met the market is a powerful and efficient mechanisms for allocating resources. What we now have is not a market economy. It is increasingly a command economy centrally planned and managed by the world's largest corporations to maximize financial returns to top managers and the wealthiest shareholders at the expense of the rest of society. If the corporate libertarians were to bear serious allegiance to market principles and human rights, they would be calling for policies aimed at achieving the conditions in which markets function in a democratic fashion in the public interest. They would be calling for measures to end subsidies and preferential treatment for large corporations, to break up corporate monopolies, encourage the distribution of property ownership, internalize social and environmental costs, root capital in place, secure the rights of workers to the just fruits of their labor, and limit opportunities to obtain extravagant individual incomes far greater than their productive contribution.

Corporate libertarianism is not about creating the market conditions that market theory argues will result in optimizing the public interest. It is not about the public interest at all. It is about defending and institutionalizing the right of the economically powerful to do best serves their immediate interests without public accountability for the consequences. It places power in institutions that are blind to issues of equity and environmental balance.


Exactly right. Which is what makes the "Adam Smith-Problem" so hilarious. What the "Adam Smith-Problem" is rephrased is, "Why is it that what we read as Adam Smith doesn't fit with anything else he says?" Hilarious in a very sad way obviously. He doesn't mean what you think he meant, and it's clear what he means. You just choose to ignore those words because it's not what you're looking for. I find most people don't even read it all.
Of course, but how do you update the pages without people removing your content. No one wants to listen to it. They've decided what Adam Smith meant, and anyone else is irrelevant. I've updated pages and had content removed. Can we get a group discussion to update these pages?
I agree, the article lacks in comprehensiveness and NPOV. I place a tag on top of the article untill these issues are addressed.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Progressive Tax

Economists Robert Reich, a Democrat who worked for Clinton, and Herbert Stein, a Republican who worked for Nixon, both agree that Adam Smith advocated progressive taxation. So does the Encyclopedia of Economics, which you can look up in the library. If anyone wants to deny that Adam Smith supported progressive taxation (and that on the contrary he supported a flat tax), they must at least find a source as notable and reliable as Reich, Stein, and the Encyclopedia of Economics (and not a blog). And the rule in Wikipedia is that you add the dissenting opinion to the article, not delete the opinion you disagree with. Nbauman (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The original quotation did not support the characterization as progressive, which is why I changed it. Your added quotation does support that notion. I would say weakly support because Smith's phrase "not very unreasonable" is not exactly strong support and the following paragraphs do not follow up on the idea. All in all my first impression is that some analysts may have been engaging in OR, trying to use the prestige of Adam Smith to support their own POV. Nonetheless, they are reliable sources and they are our standard.
I am hardly an expert on Adam Smith so reading this and related Wikipedia articles is a fun learning experience. Along the way I am inserting {{fact}} tags in places such as The Wealth of Nations and Progressive tax. There are statements that might be - probably are - true, but they need citations to support them.
A quick Google search shows other reliable sources believing that Adam Smith would favor a flat tax or arguing that Smith opposed income taxes and instead preferred property taxes. I will add those other viewpoints. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Good. Just be sure to follow WP:RS. Nbauman (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think progressive taxation quote should be moved to The Wealth of Nations page, and only short summary sentence should be left in the main article. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I think that part of the article is fine. I have no problem with similar information being included in Wealth of Nations, but it should not be removed from this article.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This quote is relatively unimportant, so now it takes too much space. A short summary sentence would be sufficient and would reflect NPOV better. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Doopdoop, please read WP:ATA. You're not giving any reason why it's unimportant, you're just arguing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's not a sufficient reason for deleting it.
I would argue, in favor of keeping it, that many people who claim the authority of Adam Smith's ideas also want to abolish progressive taxation, and cut taxes generally. I see them regularly in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. I had a Republican friend who believed that progressive taxation was a Marxist idea, until I showed him those quotes from and about Adam Smith. We must leave it in the article because otherwise people will misrepresent and misunderstand Adam Smith's ideas. That's why it's important.
If you think there is an NPOV problem, then find someone who has a different point of view on Adam Smith's position on progresive taxation, and add it. But I don't believe you'll be able to find a RS who doesn't agree that Adam Smith supported progressive taxation. Nbauman (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
NPOV article states: "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. " Support of progressive taxation is relatively unimportant aspect of the Wealth of Nations book (e.g. compared to the invisible hand concept or defence of economic freedom), so progressive taxation part of the article should be shortened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doopdoop (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) There is no undue weight. There is no NPOV problem. It seems to me that you have a POV that you want represented in this article, and to achieve that, you need to gut the "progressive tax" section. Please explain to me the NPOV problem that you see. All I see are well-researched facts that flesh out Smith's views so as to give readers more concrete and accurate understandings of Smith's philosophy than they would have if the section were not present (or very short).--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me too that Doopdoop's claim of undue weight is mere POV. Doopdoop, I've given you reasons why I think Adam Smith's ideas about progressive taxation are important. What reasons do you have to support your position that they are unimportant (besides your personal opinion)? Nbauman (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Please look at Answers.com Smith page. In the nine sources presented at Answers.com, there is no mention of progressive taxation at all. So this relatively unimportant quote is given too much attention. One summary sentence should be enough. --Doopdoop (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't identify a logical argument there. You're saying that because Answers.com didn't mention progressive taxation, it's not important. How does that follow?
Answers.com is not a reliable source. They have no identified editor who is responsible for compiling it. It seems to be computer-generated Internet scraping. All they did is put together several public-domain or fair-use sources from the Internet -- including this Wikipedia article, except that they have an older version.
Herbert Stein, Robert Reich, and the Wall Street Journal Editorial page did think that progressive taxation was an important part of Adam Smith's philosophy. So did The Encyclopedia of Economics, which is where I looked it up.
Which is a more reliable source -- the anonymous compiler at Answers.com, or Herbert Stein, Robert Reich, the WSJ and the Encyclopedia of Economics? Whose judgment is more authoritiative for purposes of WP:WEIGHT? Who understands Adam Smith better?
Could you explain wny you pick Answers.com over those other sources? Nbauman (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Answers.com is a tool that lets you check many reliable sources at once. Consice Encyclopedia of Economics article about Adam Smith does not mention progressive taxation at all. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
So what? Just because you could find a reference book that doesn't mention an idea, that doesn't mean the idea isn't important. Herbert Stein was on Nixon's Council of Economic Advisors. Robert Reich was on Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors. They think it's important. Who wrote the entry on Adam Smith in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics? What makes it more reliable than Stein and Reich? Nbauman (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Stein and Reich are a minority among Adam Smith scholars in emphasizing progressivity of taxation. Other scholars emphasize other more important topics about Adam Smith. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What Adam Smith scholars say that progressivity of taxes isn't important? Nbauman (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
They are simply emphasizing different things than are presented in the Wikipedia article. --Doopdoop (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Who are those Adam Smith scholars that emphasize progressivity less than Stein and Reich? Name one. Nbauman (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

During and after the bicentennial celebration paragraph

This paragraph should be improved:

During and after the bicentennial celebration of the Wealth of Nations in 1976, much more attention has been paid to The Theory of Moral Sentiments as well as to his use of rhetoric, his views on virtue, government intervention or on the provision of public health, public works and education and his opposition to slavery, morally and economically, inequality, including racial inequality, and to beliefs in the color line, the inferiority of blacks, and the poor and the Irish. Nor did Smith believe that common sense was inferior to science.[1]. Topics that increased in frequency after 1976 include: calling him a moral philosopher and scientist or economist, pointing to a need to read both of his two major works, and his lesser works as well, describing his "economic man" as also a moral man, presenting his interests in virtue and morality, identifying the effects of his definition of the separation of the church and state, and of various of forms of government, including republics, on ending or promoting slavery, war, or both, characterizing mercantilism, slavery and colonialism, monopoly, as less efficient, and more expensive than free trade, free labor, or labor not coerced by want, misery, or force, discussing his legacy as a "lost legacy", citing his enemies and those who are and have "purloined" or "coopted" his works, looking at the British's government response to him and other English citizens who were his friends after the French Revolution, and his response to religion and querying why he did not publish promised works.

Please discuss how to improve this paragraph. Maybe we should temporarily remove it from the article page while discussing improvements. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

the Adam Smith Problem/ PJ ORourke

PJ O'Rourke was on The A Daily Show promoting his new book regarding Wealth of Nations. That might need some coverage here as a response to WoN. I clicked over here to catch up a bit, and notice the ASP section lacks any serious citation, beyond on in the intro paragraph. can someone who knows the subject matter take this on? It seems like an interesting contrast. ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Cost of Production Theory and the Invisible Hand

At present the article reads as though the cost of production theory is definitely intended by Smith; while this is the general consensus in recent theory (Blaug, 1997; O'Brien, 2004), it is by no means as certain as the following excerpt from the entry suggests: "If too many producers enter the market, the increased competition among manufacturers and increased supply would lower the price of the product to its production cost, the "natural price"." Perhaps he might be described as having a supply side theory instead? (Next three paras on this!)

The natural price as defined in the WoN, in the fourth para of the chapter 'Of the Natural and Market Price of Commodities' as the price sufficient to pay rent, wages and profits at their 'natural rates'; these rates are defined in the first three paras of the same chapter as 'ordinary or average rates... at the time and place in which they commonly prevail'. This leads to two important points:

First, the price is not necessarily determined by profits, wages and rents; they may be, as Smith terms them, 'components', or shares in the distribution of value, without being price-determining. The natural price corresponds to the cost of bringing the good to market (para five, same chapter), and is in that sense cost-of-production determined, but it is not STRICTLY so, since the 'natural' rates of wages, profits and rents are dependent on the (non-physical) conditions of society other than the physical costs of production. In any event, Smith's theory is not unambiguously a pure C-O-P case, though it is a supply side theory of price.

Secondly, the natural price is a statistical entity at any time, toward which market prices do not necessarily tend ("the market price of any particular commodity [may] continue long above... its natural price" - same chapter, 8th from last para). The key point here is that the market price is simply deviation from the statistical mean price, not a case of comparative statics disequilibrium.

Re the invisible hand, the topic has probably been commented on beyond its importance, but it's worth clarifying, since it involves a popular misconception. The invisible hand is indeed only mentioned once in the WoN (Bk.4, C.II), in relation to merchants preferring, ceteris paribus, to keep their capital at home, where serendipitously, it has the greatest positive effect on the economy's wealth, and their preferring to invest in the most profitable industry available, whih is that which produces the most value to society. The price mechanism is not mentioned as an instance of the invisible hand (as is essentially claimed in the article, and frequently taught in secondary school economics), nor does it suggest national ownership of capital is a requisite for gains from trade (discussion topic 23.2). It appears, most accurately, to be the incidental achievement of social benefit by self-interested actors. The price mechanism is a mere instance of the invisibe hand, not its primary existence, and the two are never mentioned in the same breath by Smith.

Re Marx and Smith (discussion topic 16), Marx was definitely influenced by Smith, though to a much lesser degree than by Ricardo: he draws extensivel on Smith's analysis of the division of labour in particular, both its advantages and disadvantages, in V1 CXIV; he is very critical of Smith's policy proposals, motives, indeed, his personal hygeine probably comes under attack at Some point in Capital, knowing Marx, but he doesn't much criticise Smith's analysis in this case.

Sorry for the length of my ramblings!

-Mordant Analyst MordantAnalyst (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you got any referenced source about the cost of production theory? --Doopdoop (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hollander (1973) argues for general equilibrium instead of COP, Samuelson (1977) argues that Smith's assumptions mean market prices can continue above natual prices indefinitely, without trend (contrary to COP), granting certain assumptions, Dobb (1973) argues Smith held a cross between an adding up theory and a demand-supply theory, and Ricardo argues in his Principles that Smith held a pure labour theory of value. That should prove contention.
Also Bk1 C9 suggests rent is price determined, and Bk4 C4 that wages and profits are interdependent; both cases contrary to COP.
I confess, however, that I can find no reference claiming a broad supply-side theory of value; perhaps the article could be adjusted to mention that the 'market price tends to natural price' view is not uncontentious in theory, and thus that prices need not always be determined by COP? Thus avoiding the need to claim Smith's value theory for any one camp in particular. MordantAnalyst (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Wasn't Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres written by Hugh Blair? The article says Adam Smith wrote it. --Explodicle (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure off the top of my head, but the Hugh Blair article agrees with you. Gary King (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture of 20 pound note

I believe that Adam Smith is featured on the 20 pound note. It would be nice if we could include this picture in the article. But I couldn't find a free image on wikipedia. Any idea how to get a picture of this? (See here for what I am referring to). Remember (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You can grab it from many different websites, but it must be used under fair use and shrink it considerably so that it cannot be used for counterfeit purposes. Here's a better image than the one you offered because it does not have the copyright tag, but still includes 'specimen' so that it cannot be reprinted: [3] Gary King (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how it works in England, but if the U.S. government created and published a picture of the bill, then it would fall under public domain. So I would think we could just copy it from the government website.[4][5] Morphh (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You can take those especially since they have 'specimen' on them, but they are not public domain by any means, at least not in the UK. Bank of England holds the copyrights; look at {{Non-free currency}} and the image pages for the images at Banknotes of the pound sterling. Gary King (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the one on the main page, as it does not show the entire note but just the main part with Smith on it. Since it is not an entire note, I expect it doesn't need the 'specimen' on it. Morphh (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe we can use that; the main thing to remember is that it is fair use and needs the currency tag applied to it. Gary King (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the image fair use rational (Image:Adam_smith_note.jpg). Want to make sure it looks good to everyone. Morphh (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yowza, I have never seen those templates used before on an image; not that that is a problem, since it's the information that matters. Looks good. Gary King (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is removing all the external links in one fell swoop really an improvement? I am not convinced. If there is a guideline about this I don't know about, please enlighten me. --RayBirks (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
General guidelines can be found at WP:EL. The links in this article were collected over time, and a lot of them are either redundant with references already in the article (therefore not providing anything new) or are redundant with OTHER external links (like five links to Wealth of Nations?). People can feel free to add new links, but now that WP:ECON/FAD has begun on this article, we can give an active effort in keeping the links to a minimum. Personally, I generally keep up to three external links in total so that it forces me to only choose the best ones to include. Gary King (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I pasted the previous external links below, just in case people want to know what is being discussed. Remember (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Previous External links
General
Works

I have hidden the external links above so click on 'Show' to show them all. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Birthday

According to Rae, Smith's was born on the 5th of June [6] I don't know if this is wrong , and superseded by later evidence, but I thought I would bring it up. Remember (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

June 5 is in the article already. It's the Old Date format, just FYI. Gary King (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
But the first sentence under biography state "the exact date of Smith's birth is unknown." The Rae book makes it seem as if the date is known, but I don't know if that is just because Rae was just giving the date from the time of baptism and didn't know the real date either. Remember (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, very good point, and worth looking into further. Gary King (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Found another source that supports the current assertion that the birthday is not really known [7] if you want to use it. Remember (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
We already have a reference for his baptism date and we also state that we don't know when his birthdate is. I don't think we need to over-reference that fact too much. Gary King (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Main tag

I disagree with the removal of the main tag. This is the purpose of the tag. If the section is a summary style of a larger article, which is the case here, it should be lead with a main tag. A wikilink for this article is appropriate in the rest of the article, but not as the main link under the summary style topic heading. Morphh (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright makes sense, readded. Gary King (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

We may want to merge Lectures on Jurisprudence into this article. I don't think it's large enough to stand on its own yet. Morphh (talk) 0:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is notable enough to have its own article, so it should have its own article. We can have a passing mention of it here, but no more than what is required because it's not really significant. Gary King (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Section on every work?

Do we really need this? The articles for works besides Wealth of Nations are really short so I am wary about how much information we can find about them. Wealth of Nations seems to me to have a far wider impact than anything else he has ever produced. I would personally not want a section for any work except for Wealth. Gary King (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I could go with that. Perhaps a section title "Other works" that describes the other books. Morphh (talk) 0:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, please do that. I'll be back to working on this article in an hour or two. Gary King (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that I look at it, if we're not doing one for each, we could just roll up the minor works under the main works section, which was probably your plan all along. :-) Morphh (talk) 0:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks good! Great job so far. Gary King (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
My hat's off to both of you for your efforts here. On the "other works" question, I think we should consider giving both The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments their own subsections under "Major works." In terms of understanding Smith's thinking, it seems that both are brought up consistently enough to merit distinction from the others, which is also noted by the suggestion for a section on "The Smith Problem." MP (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Do it — if you've got enough analysis related to both Smith and the work to justify a section. Gary King (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Help is needed in the "Published works" section

I'm doing okay copyediting, finding references, and expanding content in the 'Biography' section, but I really need some people with expertise in the 'Published works' section. There is a lot of analysis there and I'm not as well-versed to do much help there. There are especially a lot of citations that are needed, and disputed claims in that section, so please find references and add them (preferably from the books we are already using in the article or web references so the References section doesn't get too cluttered!) Thanks in advance. Gary King (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to delve in and make sense of it. I'm not an expert, but I've got a good background and I've heard many of the arguments in the free-market-versus-government-intervention debate. Sorry I haven't been helping out lately, I was surprisingly busy this week. Come Monday, though, I'll be spending a few hours in the library: that's when the fun begins. Good work so far, it looks a lot better even now. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We should keep in mind when introducing or editing criticism that it be criticism about the works or Smith himself, and not generic criticism regarding certain political philosophies. These arguments are better covered on the articles concerning those philosophies. Morphh (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. There will certainly be a lot of debate over certain theories and whatnot, and those are better left to their respective articles. Take a look at articles such as Isaac Newton or Johannes Kepler (both FAs) to get an idea of how to fit in a person's work into their biography. Among Smith's works, The Wealth of Nations should of course deserve the most spotlight, but we should be discussing why Smith wrote it, what made him write certain things, etc. rather than simply analyzing the text itself. Basically, everything that is said has to have some relation to Smith otherwise why would we have it in a biographical article about him? Gary King (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The Wealth of Nations article is a behemoth, so it's not like we need to make up for covering the basics of that work in depth. I'm thinking there will be a decent amount of WP:SUMMARIZEing going on. With a clear focus on Smith and his legacy, of course. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

French article

The article on the french wikipedia fr:Adam Smith has been give FA status. This may be a good resource for information. Here is a google translation. Morphh (talk) 1:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I can read some French, which might help. Also, I must say that the Google translation is generally pretty amazing, especially compared to a few years ago when I was still using computers for translation. Gary King (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

statue to be unveiled on July 4th, 2008

FYI - There will be a grand unveiling of a large statue in Edinburgh dedicated to Adam Smith this July 4th. link. It would be nice if we could get the article to FA status by then. Remember (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If we could get this article on Wikipedia's homepage on that date, that would be nice. It's also Independence Day, though, so we might have to contend with a lot of other articles. Anyhow, that's a nice deadline to set, although it might be a bit too soon. Hopefully some of the guys who said they were really busy last week will have more time this week. Gary King (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think getting it on the main page by July 4th is feasible. Check out WP:TFAR for the scheduling requests. Apparently there's a point system: we're looking at two points, max. So getting it featured and trying to get it scheduled within the next month and a half seems unlikely. But just getting it featured: entirely possible. I'm heading to the library tomorrow morning. Let's do this thing. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I plan on heading to the library this week, too. (Today is a statuary holiday for me so I can't do it today! My library has free wi-fi.) Also, the Featured Article Candidate (FAC) process typically takes about three weeks before an article finally becomes featured. Gary King (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve section organization?

The sections are generally good as they are now, but some I think could do with some improvements. I am especially concerned with "Interpreting works" and "Adam Smith Problem"; I feel that they could be placed either somewhere else or renamed. Any thoughts? Gary King (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the organization could be improved but the "Adam Smith Problem" is a standard term in the study of Smith and we should probably have a section or subarticle with this title. I think I have a reference I can add to the Smith problem section when I get a chance.Wik-e-wik (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This has been gnawing at me for a while. For "Biography", can we have something like "Early years", "Middle years" or "Career", and "Later life" a la Isaac Newton? "Personal character" and "Religious views" don't really fit, and they should be in another second-level subheading along with his peculiarities or whatnot (perhaps). The "Interpreting works" subheading feels entirely forced, as it's essentially this subheading from long ago.
For some constructive criticism, I see four main "sections": 1) Biography (a linear history of his life), 2) his views, behavior, and character (whatever that's called), 3) Works, 4) Legacy. -FrankTobia (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, you should just do it and then we can see what you think it should look like. Worse case is it is reverted, but I'd prefer it if you just did it so I can actually see how you want it to be. Gary King (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the four major sections as you have laid them out. Feel free to implement the restructuring. Remember (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I kind of changed everything. Please don't consider it perfect, but I feel it's an improvement with a lot more tweaking to be done. I removed a lot of subheadings from the "Biography" heading. The "Character and beliefs" heading probably have a better name (I couldn't think of one), and here's where the nightgown story and describing his quirkiness come in, along with his religious views. I added a "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" subheading (with no content) to the "Published works" heading, because I saw someone was possibly interested in such a section, and I think there's enough analysis for two good paragraphs. The "Influence" section needs the most work, as there are two themes going on: analysis of ALL of his works ("Adam Smith Problem"), and "legacy" stuff like his face on money and statues (and "Critical views" should probably be renamed). I think both of those can fit under one heading, but I'll defer to the group's judgment. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I will work on filling in the Theory of Moral Sentiments section. My plan is to merge the "Adam Smith Problem" into the discussion on moral sentiments, since the problem seems to be centered around how Smith's thinking in TMS fits with WN. That said, I'll be bold and we can just re-edit if necessary. MP (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that in my opinion, I think that sections should not go any further than a level 3 heading (meaning ===). Any more subheadings, and it starts to look like more sections are added because they don't seem to fit in anywhere else. I admit, it's purely a matter of aesthetics and probably not against any Manual of Style guidelines, but I think that generally speaking, headings should first be very general, like "Biography" or "Influence", and then go one level lower, and then that's it. Any more and it feels disorganized, especially with level 4 headings that are so long that the TOC seems like it's forced to stretch horizontally, as it is right now. Gary King (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I revised the page based on your suggestions. Any thoughts on the revised layout? Remember (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks better. I always strive for the simplest solution, and that sometimes means purposely restricting articles in some way so that it forces us as editors to think things differently. That includes only going down to level 3 headers; for example, if you've got something like 'Influence -> Critical views -> Adam Smith Problem', then a possible solution might be to make it 'Influence -> Critical views' and 'Influence -> Adam Smith Problem'. Frankly, it's a service to readers to have less in the table of contents, also. Gary King (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nightgown anecdote

I've heard the story about Smith supposedly walking through the town in his nightgown several places. What are peoples thoughts on including this information and do we know where this story came from. (Here is what I'm talking about for those who don't know - "Adam Smith, the distinguished writer on political economy, walking twelve miles one Sunday morning along the king's highway, and presenting himself in a crowded church clothed solely in his nightgown..." from [8]). Remember (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of the story, but it doesn't sound notable enough to include. Where can we fit this in? Of the biographies that I came across on Smith, none contained this anecdote. Also, the link you provided doesn't show me the quote that you mentioned. Gary King (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've heard it several places so I am inclined to include it, and I would put it in under the personal character section which already mentions contemporaneous accounts of his comic absentmindedness but gives no examples. We could just footnote that section and cite to the nightgown anecdote. As for the link, it works for me, but the book is A Study of Genius by Noble Kibby Royse and the text is from page 41 and is available by Google Books search. I will try to find another source for this anecdote. Remember (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's another source - From [9] ("One Sunday morning Adam Smith wandered into his garden, wearing only a nightgown, completely engrossed in some philosophical problem. Totally absorbed in his thoughts, he then strolled out into the street and began walking towards a nearby village. Adam Smith had covered the twelve miles to town before the ringing of the church bells jarred him from his reveries. Churchgoers arriving for the morning service were stunned to find the renowned philosopher in their midst, but more astonished still to see him in his nightgown. Smith simply turned in his tracks and calmly made his way back home, leaving the villagers something to talk about for years to come.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs)
There aren't many links on Google that mention this anecdote. Of course, Google doesn't have the final word, but considering I've never heard of the story, it looks like it also isn't one that is mentioned often. If you can fit it in, then be my guest. I've been copyediting the article since yesterday, and have only reached the 'Later years' section, so I have not arrived at 'Personal life' yet. But again, I don't see the relation between this anecdote and everything else. For instance, discussing Smith's religion I would consider of utmost importance, but if Smith say, drove (a horse and carriage?) drunk, then I don't really consider that worth mentioning. It just sort of sidetracks the story. Also, a again, a lot of Smith biographies I came across do not mention this anecdote. Gary King (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Added information and split religious views out from personal character. Let me know what you think. Remember (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks good. I will copyedit it, although your references need cleaning up. Please see {{harv}} for how to cite different pages of the same book. Also, see WP:REFNAME on how to use the same reference more than once. Gary King (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I am not good at the citations, but I will try to do better now that I know where to look. Additionally, I found this ancedote mentioned on a webpage that references a book that may be interesting to add (if we can substantiate that the book says this): "In his book on 'The Wealth of Nations', P. J. O' Rourke wrote, "[Smith] talked to himself. His head swayed continually from side to side. When he walked he looked as of he was headed off in all directions...Dining at Dalkeith House, the country seat of the Duke of Buccleuch, Smith began a scathing commentary on some important politician with the politician's closest relative sitting across the table. Smith stopped when he realised this. But then he began talking to himself, saying that the devil may care but it was all true...(w)hen Smith was a government official in Edinburgh he had a ceremonial guard consisting of a porter..wielding a seven foot staff. Each day when Smith arrived the porter would perform a sort of drill team exercise. One day Smith became fascinated by this and, using his bamboo cane in place of the staff, matched the porter's every motion, present arms for present arms, about face for about face, parade rest for parade rest. Afterward no one could convince Smith that he'd done anything odd". (pps 172-173)" Remember (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure. Can be added if you feel it should be and you've got the right references. Gary King (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a great many anecdotes about Smith's unusual behviour, most of them connected to his famous absent-mindedness. I think mention of this in the article is sufficiently noteworthy. References are important, but even then, we may need to add the caveat that some such stories are likely apocryphal. Unschool (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the nightgown anecdote; it is in this book also, and it's the best example of Smith's quirky behavior. I think we should favor using this one example over others. It deserves mentioning Smith's demeanor and behavior, but more than one or two anecdotes feels like overkill. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Content removal

Notque, I reverted your previous edits in which you removed content. I understand that it's unsourced, but myself and a number of editors are in the middle of an effort to improve this article to featured status, and we are aggressively sourcing everything on the page. So far we're still on the biography section. We are trying to source these facts, rather than remove them. At the copyediting stage I imagine lots of text will get reworked and deleted. Also, I appreciate your edit, and especially that it's cited. I think the paragraphs need some work, but then again so does the rest of that section. I look forward to working with you to improve this article. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your willingness to discuss in good faith. Can I be of assistance? I have studied the issue quite closely and have edited this page with additions and references before. There are several topics on Adam Smith that I feel are not represented that give a different impression than the article leads the reader to believe. Thanks q (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like you can help us out a great deal in balancing the article's perspective. I think I see you providing different critical views which will prove very useful when we need to review the article to conform with WP:NPOV. I only ask that we keep all critical positions until the group decides later on which are legitimate and deserve mention. And in the mean time anyone can feel free to add more; I think at this stage more content can only be beneficial. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Please also format citations using the citation templates provided. Gary King (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't really consider the positions and changes I wish to make critical. They are just uncommon. They are critically important to understand the context of his words which are so obviously misunderstood by most people. The easiest thing to communicate that I want to be added is that Adam Smith was writing about issues within his time. That is very badly misunderstood in this article, and in economics in general. He is used as some patron saint of the system we currently have, and that's absurd. The system we have didn't even remotely exist, and it was obvious he would be entirely against this system based on a Wealth of Nations alone. I can cite and reference all of it. I have no intention to do anything but add his own words to provide this crucial context, and I expect them to be studied and determined on from his own words, and nothing concerning my interpretation of them. Does this make any sense? It feels weird challenging the accepted intellectual paradigm about a man, but it's clear that his words disagree with what everyone says about him. He is clear about his intentions. He was against corporations because if someone owned stock in a company they would not be involved with the company, and the balance would suffer. This was crucial to understanding his words, and people ignore that and focus on what he said about markets. But they don't even focus on that! He was only for markets under strict circumstances, and within limits.
To restate. A wealth of nations is a critical work against our current system of economics, and instead it's cherry picked to be a blessing to our current system. A simple concept of what life was like in his time would be more than sufficient to prove the whole thing bogus. All one has to do is read a wealth of nations, and his intentions are clear and unambiguous. q (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the changes proposed by q (User talk:Notque. The final section of the article shows that the view of Smith as the patron saint of free-market economics is contested, and the discussion of the Adam Smith problem shows that its questionaable, so it shouldn't be stated as fact elsewhere in the article. JQ (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
A wealth of nations is a critical work against our current system of economics. You contradict yourself, q, when you write this shortly after writing "The system we have didn't even remotely exist." I do not dispute your assertion that Smith's ideas are today cherry-picked to support particular notions. But I suspect you are engaged in the same practice yourself.Unschool (talk)
I understand why you would considering it a contradiction, however I'd like to clarify.
He expressed many things about his feelings on economics which are neither right, nor wrong, but his opinions on how a system should work. Those things that he expressed regardless of the particulars cannot vouch for something that doesn't exist. I.E. you cannot extrapolate from his position an entirely new position that doesn't exist. For approval of something, this is true.
That isn't true for a negative. If he disagrees with something, and that part exists with additional parts. You can extrapolate that his negative extends. It's not 100%, but it's significant. Further, if the reasons why he was negative are larger, as opposed to smaller, then you can easily extrapolate his disagreement with the system.
You cannot approve of something that didn't exist, but you can disapprove of it. You can state that he may have been in favor of the system that didn't exist as long as it fit the majority of his reasonings, but it clearly doesn't. He was against corporations because he felt that if someone owned a portion of a corporation that didn't work there, that they wouldn't put the needs of the workers and the customers ahead of his own desire for profit. So I ask you, with his opinion being that (if you disagree, or would like clarification i'll cite it for you), would he be for a system where corporations not only exist, but have rights that were unfathomable at the time, like being immortal.
There is no contradiction. If he were against corporations for the reason that the people who work in a factory should own the factory, then why would he be for our current system? If he believed that perfect equality would lead to perfect markets, and we don't have perfect equality, why would he be for markets? Negatives can be proved, positives that didn't exist are much more difficult. He was negative to the foundations of our system. They went against his reasoning. Maybe new evidence would have changed his mind, but that would take a revert of all his foundations in all of his writings which were unambiguous.
Please look out for me, and anyone who is cherry picking information to support particular notions. I am expressing the "Adam Smith Problem" which is an important issue. What is the Adam Smith problem? "Why does Adam Smith say things that disagree with what we think he meant?"
There's a clear reason he says things that disagree with what everyone says he meant. He didn't mean that. How often in an economics course have you ever heard a discussion on Adam Smith's problems with corporations? Where else have you read that? On his wiki page. I added it a long time ago with citation. So am I cherry picking that information? Reread A wealth of nations remembering that corporations did not exist like they do now, they were in the beginning of use, and he explains what they mean in various contexts. And he damns them in several contexts, like when they intertwine with wars. It's all there in the text. q (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You are clearly sailing down the OR River heading for the crystal-clear waters surrounding the Island of Conclusions. (I'm sorry, I got a little carried away there. Let's keep it loose, shall we?) The fact is that you are correct when you say that what we have today wasn't in existence back then. But even the most ardent Smith-worshipers today would agree with that. Where they differ with you is that they would claim that Wealth was written for the avowed purpose of bringing about what we have now. Or actually, they would likely argue that it was written to bring about what we had before Keynes and FDR. Unschool (talk)
:I disagree that I am doing original research. I've just read his work. The research is his own opinion. Let me be very clear. I do not wish to write one sentence rewriting what he said in a way someone can understand it. I merely want to cite his own words. If his own words disagree with what other people say about him, I do not consider that original research. If they argued that it was written to bring about what we had before Keynes, then they wouldn't have read a wealth of nations from page 1 to the end, because it clearly doesn't say that. I am only concerned with his words, not mine. I only want to cite his words within the context. And if someone else is rewriting what they think he said so that someone else can understand it, I want that removed and replaced with cited examples of what he said instead of someone else's vision of it. Do you have a problem with this tract, it seems solid to me. q (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The key for Smith groupies is not in the particulars of Smith's observations. (And arguably no one has ever been more particular and specific in his economic observations than Smith, which is why unabridged copies of Wealth are not easy to find, even in college bookstores.) His significance is found in a few critical observations, such as the folly of allowing anyone but the market pick prices. In railing against mercantilism and the sundry other backwards economic practices of governments in the 18th century, Smith is seen by his admirerers not as justifying today's economic system, but rather, as justifying the exclusion of most government interference in the economy. Most of today's Smith followers would also invoke him against today's system, but not for the same reasons as you lay out.Unschool (talk)
That's the key. You're explaining the problem with literature on Adam Smith perfectly.
"His significance is found in a few critical observations, such as the folly of allowing anyone but the market pick prices. "Unschool (talk)
A few critical observations taken out of context. Not what he meant, but what he said removing any context to what he meant. My only argument is that we need to keep to what he meant, as this is a page on him, and his feelings and ideas. He didn't "justify the exclusion of most government interference in the economy", he was for government interference in forcing an extremely high tax code.
He is taken out of context and used to say things he didn't mean. My only argument is that we need to cite what he said within the context of what he meant. And if that happens to not conform to the current conceptions of what he meant, it's more important that it conforms to what he meant that what economics departments say he meant. Huge burden of proof needs to be on my part. I understand and accept that. So either I can cite the information straight from his words within context, or I can't. I'm only saying, if I can cite it, and you do read it and see it, then it should exist on the page instead of the current uncited information that isn't in his text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notque (talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
To me, the question is, is there any reason that we can't cherry pick? Who says that if I don't agree with all of the tenents of a particular school of thought that I can't embrace those which I do agree with? (Okay, this guy says that, but that's something I've been working out for myself for a long, long time; it's not really germane to this discussion.) Today's Smith worshippers revere him basically for two ideas: 1) That the market should set prices and the amount of goods produced, and 2) That excessive taxation is not beneficial to the economy. So does any of the stuff that you plan to document undermine either of these notions? If so, then I think you will add much to the information we make availible to the world. But if not, if the points you're going to make are picayune observations that do not detract from the main theme of the opus that has been written in Smith's name, then maybe you're missing the point. I really don't know, and look forward to your contributions.Unschool (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the reason we can't cherry pick with a encyclopedia page on what a person wrote. That has nothing to do with what I agree with, or what you agree with. The important part is clearly what he thought. If people want to take out of context his words and cherry pick on a page about economics, I'm not going to try and change that. I am only concerned with the article on him, and maybe if that's completed, the article on a wealth of nations. If people want to cherry pick what it means in a school of thought, sure!
"So does any of the stuff that you plan to document undermine either of these notions?"Unschool (talk)
Yes. He felt the opposite way on both positions you gave as examples.
I don't know what you mean about "picayune observations". I am trying to work in good faith, and understand the burden of proof is on me with anything I add. I expect, desire, and need that. I will have to do much more work than anyone else to be clear, because the ideas I am putting forth are not in the majority. I accept all of this. I only desire that his words are more important than uncited explanations of them. Provided that is the case, I do not find we will have any problems. I may slip up in an edit, and if I do, revert it and call me out. No big deal, we all make mistakes. Or change it to deal with the issue you think exists. I have no issues with this.
I only think it's important on his page to deal with the "Adam Smith problem", or "Why is Adam Smith not consistent with all the things we say he believed." q (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to put this out there.. since we're talking about a minority viewpoint, what NPOV states regarding them. I'm not suggesting at this point what weight they should or should not have, as I don't know what the content is and how prevalent the viewpoint, but it something to keep in mind as we write.
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
The last one being important for this discussion. If these viewpoints are held by an extremely small or vastly limited minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Morphh (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree and understand the policies. My question only concerns his own work. What if the viewpoint is of the author's? Doesn't that have the most weight of all? Obviously, if it's a viewpoint only expressed by others interpreting that makes perfect sense, but if the author writes clearly about the topic and the context is simply omitted, isn't it clear that just adding the context has the desired effect. Only using the author's actual words? The view point is that of Adam Smith's, not mine. I don't have to "prove it", just cite it, or do you not see a difference in that designation. Proving it to me is original research. Citing it however is not. You may disagree and I'm interested to hear why. Thanks q (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been following the discussion much so perhaps this was mentioned above. The only concern I have with that is that it could be cherry picked. You could probably make any argument you wanted with his words if quoted correctly. I certainly don't want to misrepresent what Smith was about on either side. It is better if we stick with third party publications. I'd recommend describing what other people write about him, rather than quoting Smith to imply a position. But I could see this the other way as well. You make a good point, so I guess we'll just have to see how it goes. :-) Morphh (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
An example. In June 2007 I made this edit which was not part of the article, and is not a part of the teaching on Adam Smith generally. It would be a "minority view point" and also happens to be true. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adam_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=137837823 Now, it's been rewritten and is an excellent and informative part of the article. Does that edit fit or not? Thanks q (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Further clarifying the point I'm making is a cited statement that has been edited above that edit. "Smith postulated four "maxims" of taxation: proportionality, transparency, convenience, and efficiency. He supported low taxes and was opposed to the taxation of capital gains.[51] "
Read the citation, citation currently 51. The link is here. http://www.ncpa.org/oped/bartlett/jan2401.html
The citation is an opinion against another opinion. It has no citations to his work, and shouldn't be stated as what Adam Smith thought. It's instead a conflicting opinion of what Adam Smith thought which is by no means accurate. It's an inaccurate statement attributed to Adam Smith. If it's in the article it should be as an opinion, and not listed as what Adam Smith thought, but is instead cited as truth. Does this make sense? This is the argument I have. Why are we citing an opinion piece against someone else's opinion and attributing it to Adam Smith when we can instead cite Adam Smith as to what he thought? q (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I said "it has no citations to his work", but to be clear, I mean it does not indicate that he was for "low taxes", but does indeed mention he is "opposed to taxation of capital gains." The part I would argue to remove would be "He supported low taxes." I meant, there were no citations that indicated he supported low taxes, but instead that he argued what would constitute unnecessary taxation. I apologize if that wasn't clear. In the quote he explicitly states that "moderate taxes" would provide more revenue than high ones, but that is no indication for low taxes. I picked apart one statement that I was arguing, and didn't provide you the context for that to make sense. Apologies for the lack of clarity I've hopefully fixed. q (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense, and to your point we should assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves as fact. We should try to make it clear who is making the assertion if it is a point of disupte. Morphh (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to try and clarify a bit. First, by "critical" I meant only that your addition provide a viewpoint offering some sort of criticism, not that it be vital (see definition 3 and 4). Second, and most importantly, every position taken in this article must be someone else's position. To summarize WP:NPOV, assert facts, and facts about opinions, but not the opinions themselves. Talk about the different ways of interpreting Smith, and tell the reader who interprets Smith in these ways, but at no point insinuate that one way is "right". Before we start getting into content debates like the above (or whatever you would call the above), everyone should read and re-read WP:OR and WP:NPOV to make sure we're on the same page. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of interpreting what he has said and explaining that, but merely quoting what he has said that contradicts other information in the article that is uncited and unsourced. If someone says that he believed X, and he said Y, I am content quoting Y after the uncited and unsourced expression of X. Ideally if X is uncited and unsourced, it can be removed and replaced with Y unless someone can cite something that states X clearly. q (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that after looking at the changes since my previous edit, they are right in line with what I was doing. Several people are making good strides in removing information that in unsourced, and factually incorrect. q (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Adam Smith/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs better referencing plange 03:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Secret History of the Dismal Science: Economics, Religion and Race in the 19th Century by economists David Levy and Sandra Peart
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Smith/Archive_1&oldid=1136495757"