I meant my response to Alain Alcouffe yesterday to go to the list.  
Somehow, it went private.  Given the general interest I think the 
possible ensuing discussion may take, I'm posting here my response.

> Dear Alain,
>
> It is clear to me that the criticism you quote must have come from the 
> Benthamite community -- followers of Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism, 
> among whom were some early socialists.  I'm however puzzled by your 
> willingness to accept as valid (correct) the transference of "national 
> prosperity" to being "national happiness."  In the _Webster's 
> Dictionary_, "prosperity" is defined as "the condition of being 
> successful or thriving; esp: economic well-being" (1980, p. 918).  
> Thus, "national wealth" must mean the same thing as "national 
> prosperity."  As for those utilitarians or socialists harping upon 
> income inequality and denying the equivalence of the terms, because 
> lower income people harbor some unhappiness at the site of the 
> affluence of the higher income people, they just have to remember 
> another of Smith's important observations about human nature: "The 
> affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are 
> often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his 
> property. ... He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, 
> though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose 
> injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil 
> magistrate continually held up to chastise it.  The acquisition of 
> valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the 
> establishment of civil government" (_WN_, 2: 232).
>
> Happiness is a state of mine.  To equate that with material wealth is 
> to make a grave mistake.  Any wonder that in those countries where 
> their governments strive so hard forcibly to eliminate income 
> inequality, more people find themselves unhappy (longing to escape) 
> than in those where economic liberty and income inequality exit?  
> Think about Maoist China and life after Deng Xiaping's economic policy 
> changes, former East versus West Germany, Cuba versus Jamaica, North 
> versus South Korea, Venezuela before and after the socialist 
> transformation, beginning with Hugo Chavez and now Nicholas Maduro, 
> etc. Attempting to maximize Gross National Happiness, other than 
> through civil and economic liberties, is an illusion. Historians of 
> economic thought can help dissuade governments from that enterprise.
>
> James Ahiakpor

Alain Alcouffe wrote:
>
>  Dear all
>
> The enigmatic last sentence of Adam Smith's obituary published by the 
> Times (Saturday, 24 July 1790) stressed a distinction between 
> "national wealth" on the one hand and "national prosperity" on the 
> other hand  which can be compared with the contemporary contrast 
> between the GDP and the Gross National Happiness.
>
> "he [A. Smith] deserves the chief praise, or the chief blame, of 
> propagating a system which tends to confound National Wealth with 
> national Prosperity. "
>
> I tried to trace the history of this distinction and found an 
> anonymous article in the Tate's magazine about 'The law of 
> primogeniture', in the Tait's Edinburgh Magazine edited by William 
> Tait, Christian Isobel Johnstone (December 1846, pp. 797-801 (I have 
> taken it from a google book easy to download). It includes some 
> developments about national prosperity versus national happiness.
>
>>   * It is a great and vulgar error to confound national prosperity
>>     and national happiness. The distribution rather than the amount
>>     of wealth among a people, contributes principally to general
>>     happiness. There can be no doubt that our country has added to
>>     its riches during the present century; but it is very clear that
>>     the well-being of the bulk of the community has not increased in
>>     a corresponding ratio. Between capital and labour there is a
>>     great gulf fixed, and while the one ascends in the social scale,
>>     the course of the other is one continued descent. To obtain the
>>     greatest happiness for the greatest number ought to be the object
>>     of political economy: but while the interests of the many are
>>     thus sacrificed to the few, we can hardly expect that the
>>     arrangements of society and the distribution of property should
>>     be in unison with the spirit of the age, and the march of intellect.
>>
> No name of author is given and I wonder if anybody has an idea about 
> this author.  I just cannot find who was this opponent to the law of 
> primogeniture and proponent of  the "national happiness" through equality.
>
> Thanks for any hint or simply guess
>
> Best
>
> AA
>


-- 
James C.W. Ahiakpor, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Economics
California State University, East Bay
Hayward, CA 94542
510-885-3137
510-885-7175 (Fax; Not Private)