I think it makes sense if one thinks of "modern" as shorthand for "in
the Enlightenment tradition of scientific inquiry."

Jim Lacey
Franklin Pierce University


[log in to unmask]



On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Rob Tye <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Michael
>
> Just read through your comments on Smith, and the SHOE replies you got,
> including
>
> <<I do not find much usefulness for Michael's quotes on Smith from his new
> book.  The quotes don't tell us who he believes better qualifies for the
> title, "Founding Father of Modern Economics."  Perhaps, now he can go ahead
> and tell us his nominee with the requisite explanation.>>
>
> In reply to this latter I offer three quotes, taken from memory, but I can
> source on request
>
> 1)  From the I-Ching (c. 500 BC)
>
> "The markets must be kept open, in order to encourage production"
>
> 2)  From Ibn Khaldun, (c. 1350 quoting Anushirwan, c. 550)
>
> "The great princes should not engage in trade"
>
> 3)  From Sher Shah Suri (c. 1530, in an address to his peasantry)
>
> "Today I give you your freedom, do whatever you can to better yourselves".
>
> (As I recall he goes on the explain to his soldiery that their prosperity
> and that of the state as a whole depended upon the productivity of the
> peasantry.  He then rode off to kill a few of the most exploitative local
> landlords)
>
> My problem with the criticism cited at the head of this mail is that, as far
> as basic matters to do with the invisible hand and such like go, I do not
> see anything modern about "Modern Economics".
>
> The invisible hand idea was already nearly as old as the hills when Smith
> wrote, and history had judged its successes and failures on many previous
> occasions.
>
> The tactic of presenting Smith as a ‘founding father’ of something called
> ‘modern economics’ seems to me to place a block in the way of anyone seeking
> to learn some of the lessons that all that previous history might teach us
>
> Rob Tye
>