Everybody has a bias, his interpretation where it goes away from his words does so too. His own opinions color his view of Smith, as does mine.
My point was that his text was not wrong, but it played to people who interpret it in certain ways. A naive reading of his article would lead one to conclude that Treacher and Stalin were the same in the eyes of Smith.
I was just point out that just because they are the same in this one aspect of his thought, it is still a very large and important difference in the content. There is no question if Smith would prefer a more market oriented framework with stronger individual liberty then we have now.
I mean the state spends around ~50% of GDP in the developed world and has major regulatory powers in every aspect of the economy. I think he would admit that as well. Most scholars who work in the tradition of Smith tend to agree on that.
You will not that the podcast (and book) I linked are are equally authoritative as he is.
Given that The West adopted private capitalism whereas the Warsaw Pact adopted state capitalism:
This article's interpretation of Adam's warnings about the failings of both the merchants (chartered monopolists) and politicians directing allocation of resources, against the interests of the citizenry, is spot on.
I took the comparison of Thatcher and Stalin to be more about their top-down efforts to remake society based on some unattainable ideal, vs something about economics.
My point was that his text was not wrong, but it played to people who interpret it in certain ways. A naive reading of his article would lead one to conclude that Treacher and Stalin were the same in the eyes of Smith.
I was just point out that just because they are the same in this one aspect of his thought, it is still a very large and important difference in the content. There is no question if Smith would prefer a more market oriented framework with stronger individual liberty then we have now.
I mean the state spends around ~50% of GDP in the developed world and has major regulatory powers in every aspect of the economy. I think he would admit that as well. Most scholars who work in the tradition of Smith tend to agree on that.
You will not that the podcast (and book) I linked are are equally authoritative as he is.