Nicholas Theocarakis informs me in private correspondence that his quotes were meant to show that Clark was an apologist, presumably for the upper class, the rich, or some such. I would like to interpret the passages in a different way. I include the quotes here so that you will not have to refer back to his email:

1.	"While there is no danger that any theory may establish a permanent reign of practical socialism, there is a general and not unfounded fear of agitations and attempts in this direction ; and systems of economic science must submit to be judged, not merely by their correctness or incorrectness, but by their seeming tendency to strengthen or weaken the social fabric. In this view can that theory be the one desired which in any way obscures the action of moralforces in originating, developing and sustaining the institution of property, and which tends, however remotely, to place that institution on a de facto basis?"

In this passage, Clark is maintaining that the ideology of socialism takes the institution of private property for granted and ignores the ?moral? (which most likely meant ?social? rather than ?righteous?) basis for the institution. It is a task of economic theory, he asserts, to recognize the social foundations of the institution. Similar statements have been made by practically all of the economists that have been involved in the various branches of the theory of institutions that spun off of Ronald Coase?s classic papers. One might add that the few efforts at nation building that have disregarded the ?moral forces in originating, developing and sustaining the institution of property? -- including the Soviets, the Chinese and the Indians -- have failed miserably at enabling their people to achieve prosperity.


2.	"Does society proceed capriciously in the allotment of rewards and sacrifices? Do some classes fail to get the proportionate benefit that is properly theirs?"
"Society tends actually to conform to the rule 'to every man the product that is distinctly attributable to the sacrifice the he or others in his interest have made'".

In the second passage, Clark is writing of a tendency. I don?t have the entire article at hand. It would be amazing, however, to read in Clark that he disregarded the initial distribution of wealth, which as we know is partly, and perhaps largely, based on violent appropriation, theft, and deceit. I would wager that Smith is discussing the tendency, within a pure capitalist system (complete private property rights), for people to be rewarded according to their marginal revenue products. Should economists who recognize this tendency not inform the public about it? Should they not explain its relevance to the ?right and wrong? questions and practical policy questions of the day?


I disagree with Nicholas that these statements are apologetics. On the contrary, I believe that they reflect the performance of part of the function of science: to impart knowledge that is relevant to peoples? everyday decisions. If scientists did not do this, more disastrous nation-building experiments that ignore the social function of the institution of private property would occur.


Pat Gunning