The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
From: David Friedman <D...@best.com>
Date: 1998/05/07
Subject: Re: To David Friedman: Antitrust
In article <199805070727.AAA26...@cybere.creative.net>, "Vincent Cook" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote: You are arguing that Turgot's physiocratic theory was "integrated in a >What Smith really did was import a few French theories (but >unfortunately not some of the more advanced conceptions of value) >into the Scottish context, and thus introduce the English-speaking >world to some laissez-faire ideas in a watered-down form. Of >particular importance was Smith's advocacy of free trade in >international commerce, which has become a sort of holy grail of >British political economy (even in its more collectivist variants) >ever since. >However, unlike some of the French, coherent fashion?" Putting aside the question of influences, what do you find in Cantillon or >so he wound up advocating a long list of What government monopoly of money? Smith supported the Scottish system of >interventionist measures instead - specifically banking regulation, >a government monopoly of money, private banks issuing their own currency. Do you mean his support for a government monopoly over small notes? > public works, a government postal Where does Smith say that the post should be a monopoly? Indeed, where >monopoly, does he discuss a post office in our (rather than the 18th century) sense of the term? >agricultural export restrictions, Where does he support agricultural export restrictions? >mandates for certain Actually, Smith favored a slightly higher tax on wages in kind--a mistake, >aspects of real estate (fire walls, mortgage registration), and >prohibition of wages-in-kind. but not the mistake you attribute to him, unless you are thinking of a passage I don't know. >Smith also was in favor of many kinds And Turgot and Cantillon (and Menger and ...) were in favor of having no >of taxes. taxes? News to me. >Most economists today are still largely unaware of the ideas of the Or, alternatively, because they found Smith (and Ricardo) to have a more >early Austrians and of the pre-Smithian body of economic theory. The >Smith-as-founder myth became entrenched because the post-Revolution >French economists, starting with J.B. Say, found it politically >expedient to distance themselves from their 18th Century predecessors >(who were pro-royalist reformers, with Turgot even being Minister of >Finance briefly) and portray themselves as Smithians instead. nearly correct and consistent theory. -- David Friedman D...@Best.com http://www.best.com/~ddfr/ "No man is secure in his life, liberty or property while the legislature is in session" You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||