----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
The question of Smith's distinctive contribution is irresistible, if for no other reason
than to test my thoughts on the matter against your superior views.
 
Smith pulled together a number of ideas from preceding writers, systematizing them into a
national economic policy stance that was about to become fashionable. His work was more
eclectic and agglomerative than this would suggest, but that added to his success, because
he provided his readers with nuanced debating points on both sides of some basic
questions. He wrote well, was reader friendly, and presentation counts for much in popular
acceptance of ideas. He wrote a book that was both and extended Whig-like history, and a
critique of the mentality and institutions of its time. He took political economy,
economics if you wish, the critical step from a set of ideas with a point of view to an
embryonic social science.
 
It was the whole of the Wealth of Nations that was new, not any particular idea in it. Its
contribution was to articulate its message in a way that was consonant with the
information environment of the following century, if not centuries. And, perhaps not
least, he began his necessarily long exposition with a one hundred and thirty three page
executive [quick read] summary.
 
 
Robin Neill 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]