Adam Smith Has Something for Everyone
From the American Founders to communist meme creators, people have long claimed Smith's endorsement for their ideas.

"In political oeconomy, I think Smith's wealth of nations the best book extant." So Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend. Three hundred years after Adam Smith's inauspicious birth in Kirkcaldy, it's not hard to make the case that it's still true.
Claiming the endorsement of the greatest of the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers for one's own arguments has been a successful rhetorical gambit for at least as long as Smith's books, The Theory of Moral Sentiments and An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, have been available to the public.
Jefferson's lifelong opponent Alexander Hamilton lifts entire passages from Wealth of Nations in his "Report on Manufactures" to Congress, for instance, only to be met—as Yuval Levin notes in his anniversary tribute to Smith at National Review—by James Madison, citing Smith (rather more credibly) in opposition to Hamilton's proposal for a national bank.
This pattern established by the American Founders has continued to the present day, when one will often hear progressives summoning Smith's words to battle for the causes of antitrust, publicly funded schooling, labor unions, taxing the rich, and more. Economist David Friedman vets the legitimacy of these claims and finds them mostly wanting in "Adam Smith Wasn't a Progressive" (page 22).
Neocons such as John Bolton and David Frum, at the height of their powers in the early 21st century, frequently invoked (and often misquoted) Smith's line that "defence…is of much more importance than opulence"—ripped from its proper context, which was an extended defense of free trade.
One might think that Smith's reputation would rise and fall with capitalism itself, which he is sometimes said to have "invented" or even "fathered." But at a time when capitalism as a concept is troublingly unpopular, Smith's compassionate and insightful words about the poor still make regular appearances in the posts of the Facebook page "Quotes from Capitalists that Inadvertently Provide Support for Communism," sometimes fetchingly styled on a red background in bright yellow letters to drive the message home for even the most obtuse and speedy scroller.
There's a reason that everyone still wants a piece of the odd Scottish bachelor after all these centuries. In an age when one can make the case to melt down nearly every statue of a once-revered figure, Adam Smith remains startlingly unproblematic. He was scathing about the slave trade as well as the mistreatment of Native Americans. His compassion for underdogs and his delight in the improvement of the circumstances of the poor shine though the archaic prose, as does the sincerity of his self-scrutiny. As his namesake, economist Adam C. Smith, notes in this month's interview (page 41), Smith's effort to be descriptive rather than proscriptive, as well as a healthy strain of anti-elitism from a man who lived his life among elites, have aged well. There is every reason to think future generations will continue to find Smith appealing enough to co-opt.
Smith is so voluminous, so compelling, and so pragmatically knowledgeable on so many subjects that there is something for everyone in his work. It is also true that the man was rarely succinct. Meandering prose tends to lend itself to multiple interpretations, which is both an asset and a liability for the longevity of his legacy.
Throughout this issue, you'll find some of Reason's favorite people sharing some of their favorite Adam Smith quotes. Nobel laureate Vernon Smith explores Smith's ideas about the division of labor in his musing that "the universal opulence of a well-governed society," which "extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people," rests on "the assistance and co-operation of many thousands" (page 16). Deirdre Nansen McCloskey, author of several books in the Smithian tradition, probes the meaning of Smith's friendship with the scandalously atheistic David Hume (page 28).
EconTalk's Russ Roberts reminds us of a rare pithy observation from Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments that "man naturally desires, not only to be loved, but to be lovely"—that is, to have the respect and admiration and friendship of his peers, but also to truly deserve those things (page 29). Atlas Network's Tom G. Palmer goes deep into some of the few unpublished papers Smith allowed to remain unburnt to explore his famous observation about humanity's "propensity to truck, barter, and exchange" (page 26). Cartoonist Peter Bagge even summons Smith's ghost to chastise those who would use his words for their own misbegotten ends (page 48).
The quote closest to my own favorites comes from Dan Hannan of the U.K. House of Lords: "By means of glasses, hotbeds, and hotwalls, very good grapes can be raised in Scotland, and very good wine too can be made of them at about thirty times the expense for which at least equally good can be brought from foreign countries" (page 19).
The enthusiastic polymathic approach embedded in this quote is Smith at his most endearing. He's arguing for a big thesis, sure. But you don't have to buy the thesis to appreciate the interesting information about viticulture in cold climes and the insight into the price of claret. For this reason I have always loved the index for Wealth of Nations above all else. Opening to a random page yields these gems:
Cabbages, half the price they were forty years ago, 95–6
Catholics established Maryland, 589
Cato, advised good feeding of cattle, 166
Coach, a man not rich because he keeps a, 93
Colleges, whether they have in general answered the purposes of their institution, 759
Commodities, the natural advantages of countries in particular productions, sometimes not possible to struggle against, 458
Conceit, man's overweening, often noticed, 124
Smith understood that the stuff of the world matters—how it's made, how much it costs, how it's traded—and that to understand humanity we must consider both the spiritual and the material.
It was once taken as a given that there was a tension between Smith's two books, with Theory of Moral Sentiments styled as a work of moral philosophy and Wealth of Nations as an economics textbook avant la lettre. The Germans even named this "Das Adam Smith Problem." You won't find that term elsewhere in this issue, because we—like most of today's Smith scholars—do not think there is a problem to solve. Smith wanted to understand the world and the people in it. There is not such a huge gap between who people are in their hearts, and who they are in a bustling marketplace. We are sympathetic and self-interested, in both places, everywhere and always.
At Reason, of course, we believe that the magazine of free minds and free markets is one of Smith's many true heirs. Like Smith, we believe that the free movement of people and goods across borders is a powerful force worthy of respect and appreciation. Like Smith, we marvel at the ingenuity of that "invisible hand" and seek to chronicle its many manipulations. And like Smith, we see tremendous value in simply describing and puzzling through the world in all its weird splendor—from cabbages to conceit.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
While taking risks and visiting far-flung locations, I make $100 each hour. Last week, I travelled to Rome, Monte Carlo, and ultimately Paris while working remotely. This week, I’m back in the USA. I just use this one ed48 fantastic website for easy tasks. see it,
.
.
Click here—————————— >>> http://Www.Pay.Hiring9.Com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
Begin making more than $8,000 per week right now by completing a very basic and straightforward home-based job online. I made $24683 last month by performing this online work part-time for about 2 hours every day on my laptop. This job is fantastic and simple to do part-time. Everyone may start making extra money online by just following the steps below………..:) AND GOOD LUCK.:)
.
.
.
————————————-➤ https://Clickearn25.blogspot.Com
Communist meme creators?
I thought that we had clearly established over the past decade+ that the left couldn't meme. At all.
There is a job opportunity for everyone! You can work from the comfort of your home, using your computer. Additionally, you can work according to your schedule. You can work this job As part-time or As A full-time job. The online work can earn you up to $1000 per day. It’s easy, just follow the instructions on the home page, read it carefully from start to finish and
check the details…… https://Www.Worksprofit.com
we (at Reason) believe that the free movement of people and goods across borders is a powerful force worthy of respect and appreciation.
Nice.
Way to trigger the Trump-Tards, Katherine.
Although they were not likely to read an article on Adam Smith.
The commentariat must think of him as a "lefty" for his support for free trade, even if it's unilateral.
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
ON the religious basis of society, Smith was all wet and his friend Edmund Burke was right and almost prophetic.
And his view of politics has a central connection with that of Jefferson, a huge surprise to me when I found it.
BURKE [Laws and spending money ]It is to be looked on with other reverence . . . it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born . . . a clause in the . . . contract of eternal society.
JEFFERSON very practically thought it immoral to spend so that a future generaltion has to foot the bill. He thought 19 years the extent of the moral power of people to go into debt.
And today, quoting Smith, we allow Presdient Moron to spend $8 TRILLION;
“Never borrow a dollar without laying a tax . . . for paying the interest annually, and the principal within a given term . . . on such a pledge as this . . . a government may always command . . . all the lendable money of the citizens, while the necessity of an equivalent tax is a salutary warning to them & their constituents against oppressions.” Thomas Jefferson
He quarreled with Madison about public debt: that present generations should not transmit obligations to future ones. This idea flowed directly from his axiom that “the earth belongs in usufruct to the living.” A September 6, 1789 letter to Madison: “No generation can contract greater debts than may be paid during the course of its own existence.”
So, libertarian,s have you learned anything ??
Smith was all wet
The fotherington-tomas of political economy?
Book V: On the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth
Adam Smith
Chapter III: On Public Debts
He does get this right though
"In great empires the people who live in the capital, and in the provinces remote from the scene of action, feel, many of them, scarce any inconveniency from the war; but enjoy, at their ease, the amusement of reading in the newspapers the exploits of their own fleets and armies. To them this amusement compensates the small difference between the taxes which they pay on account of the war, and those which they had been accustomed to pay in time of peace. They are commonly dissatisfied with the return of peace, which puts an end to their amusement, and to a thousand visionary hopes of conquest and national glory from a longer continuance of the war."
and of course Adam Smith was anti-Catholic and Burke very pro.
He quarreled with Madison about public debt: that present generations should not transmit obligations to future ones. This idea flowed directly from his axiom that “the earth belongs in usufruct to the living.” A September 6, 1789 letter to Madison: “No generation can contract greater debts than may be paid during the course of its own existence.”
It wasn’t exactly a quarrel. Jefferson didn’t express his 19 years’ concept publicly because he and Madison liked to bounce ideas off of each other, and he wanted to know what Madison thought about it. Included in this 19 years’ concept was Jefferson wondering if the Constitution should have an expiration date, and the Republic forced to author a new Constitution every 19 years.
Madison gave the practical rejoinder to this, in saying that not everyone operates on the same start and end cycle. If you’re trying to start up a business or even simply planning a large purchase of land, but you know the entire basis of your government could be rewritten in two years, you’re a lot more hesitant. The ability to amend the constitution in only very targeted ways means that people know in advance if any major changes might be coming, and otherwise they get the stability of knowing that the underlying principles of government aren’t going to be rewritten.
Never go into debt without a clear plan of how you’ll repay the debt. That’s fine, but sometimes you do need to go into debt, in order to cover a brief shortfall or else to get an enterprise started up, perhaps to purchase farming tools for a new start-up farm. But if you can’t plan on the fact that all contracts might be voided regardless of your own personal contract, nobody is ever encouraged to create anything.
Madison explained all of this to Jefferson, who agreed with Madison’s pragmatism. They both agreed that it was detrimental to enter into debts that must be repaid by the next generation, which is a bit ironic considering they both were rather destitute when they died. (Madison was perhaps insightful enough to keep a huge library of all of his writings and notes, including the most detailed notes of anyone at the Philadelphia convention, which Congress eventually purchased off of Dolly Madison that helped alleviate some of her financial difficulties)
So what can you possibly mean by 'detrimental' if you are exluding the public that pays for all this. You seem to be making MY POINT 🙂
The original Jubilee Year was based on debt cycles. Every fifty years (every other generation) all debts get written off and everyone returns to the 'original' 12 tribes grant and lives off the land debt free for a year.
Apparently the Joseph story had more to it (generational debt resulting in slavery) than is usually understood.
Course the simultaneous jubilee year concept had problems. But a constitutional limit on debt duration for each bond - with a requirement to create a sinking fund for the principal makes a ton of sense
And at this point - a debt jubilee for the under30s is required.
I have learned that Jefferson was arguing AGAINST borrowing money and that the tax to pay off the debt was intended to warn the voters against appointing politicians to office who ran up the debt, as the voters themselves would have to pay the higher taxes as a result. It’s the voters who failed to learn this lesson as they continue endlessly to elect and re-elect politicians who raise the tax rates on “the rich” ignoring the fact that the debt is NOT paid for with the increased taxes. Hocus pocus is used to delude the masses into thinking the bill will never come due – right up until the point where the economic system crashes – at which point they start blaming each other for the disaster, having learned nothing.
There are a wide diversity of people who can draw something from Smith because classical era economics was open to achieving liberal ideas that were still mostly on a to do list.
Neoclassical or marginalist econ is mostly about defending and rationalizing a status quo.
Smith is too wordy though. The best introduction to Smithian economics, free trade, and the night watchman state is his precursor - Anders Chydenius. A Finnish/Swedish priest who wrote a pamphlet called National Gain about 10 years before Smith.
Take out the extremely lengthy section on Corn Prices in England, The Wealth of Nations remains very readable.
The connection between Smith and Marx, is that Smith postulated the Labor Theory of Value. He was wrong of course, but so was everyone else at the time. Marginal Utility (and thus the supply and demand curve) was not realized after Smith's death.
Nonetheless, Marx took that mistake and ran with it, and ended up being the ideological core of some of the most pernicious totalitarian regimes in all of human history. Even though Marx knew the idea was wrong, he was so committed to it he continued to run with it. Capitalists do NOT expropriate excess value from labor!
My understanding of Smith's view on labor and value was that he saw how specialization and division of labor could reduce the labor required, and thus lower the cost.
Yes, but in Adam Smith's time regional differences in the cost of labor weren't nearly as important as the transportation costs of imports. I don't think it was so much a mistake as it was a matter of more recent progress drastically changing the perspective and the factors for analysis.
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ......
SITE. ——>>> salary009.com
Also in Adam Smith's time industrialization was in its infancy, the upper classes and their property were still inherited, the working classes had few rights, power or privileges, and it was extremely difficult for workers to migrate to where they could find better work or independence.
The conflict between Henry George and Karl Marx is the culmination of the classical economics argument.
Nice article, but naturally I want to quibble. You say "Jefferson's lifelong opponent Alexander Hamilton lifts entire passages from Wealth of Nations in his "Report on Manufactures" to Congress, for instance, only to be met—as Yuval Levin notes in his anniversary tribute to Smith at National Review—by James Madison, citing Smith (rather more credibly) in opposition to Hamilton's proposal for a national bank."
Since I haven't read Yuval, I have to ask, did he also note that Madison also argued that a national bank was not only un-Smithian, but unconstitutional? And that, when Madison himself became president he said that the now existing national bank was in fact unconstitutional, but was also a good idea, and so we should just let it stand, because we shouldn't follow the constitution when it's, you know, wrong? It's "interesting" that the Father of the Constitution didn't take the Constitution all that seriously.
So your point is that the Founders of the United States of America were flawed, if brilliant, human beings? This is about Adam Smith. Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison all cited Adam Smith. The Constitution did not cite Adam Smith. The Constitution was written largely to address the perceived flaws of the Articles, not to follow or ignore Adam Smith. The Constitution also had flaws, some of which were intentional (to kick the can of slavery down the street) and some of which were left vague due to the assumption that the principles were self-evident and that future generations would not abuse them (the Interstate Commerce Clause, for example.) The national bank turns out to have been a mistake, frequently repeated in our history whenever some more authoritarian politician didn't like the economy.
I believe that the importance of people - their skills and their participation in society - is an underappreciated aspect of the writings of Adam Smith. Free market capitalism has improved the lot of everyone in the world regardless of their previous status or the status of their ancestors. Although it is impossible to know for sure what the economic status of the world would have been without the incessant interference of power-hungry politicians over the decades and centuries, there is no possible doubt now that Adam Smith was prescient and amazingly correct in his assertions of the invisible hand and its beneficial effects! The only arguments the socialists and would-be despots can ever cite against the impressive virtues of free markets and private property are ones of local fairness and temporary dislocations resulting from the rapid progress caused by free market capitalist systems.
Does he have a big bag of weed?
he