As suggested privately to Alain, T. Malthus in his 'Essay' wrote something interesting about  our debate:

"THE professed object of Dr Adam Smith's inquiry is the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. There is another inquiry, however, perhaps still more interesting, which he occasionally mixes with it, I mean an inquiry into the causes which affect the happiness of nations or the happiness and comfort of the lower orders of society, which is the most numerous class in every nation. I am sufficiency aware of the near connection of these two subjects, and that the causes which tend to increase the wealth of a state tend also, generally speaking, to increase the happiness of the lower classes of the people. But perhaps Dr Adam Smith has considered these two inquiries as still more nearly connected than they really are; at least, he has not stopped to take notice of those instances where the wealth of a society may increase (according to his definition of 'wealth') without having any tendency to increase the comforts of the labouring part of it. I do not mean to enter into a philosophical discussion of what constitutes the proper happiness of man, but shall merely consider two universally acknowledged ingredients, health, and the command of the necessaries and conveniences of life". (Ch. 16)
Bye, Luigino

 
> I second Tony Aspromourgos's comment about opulence in Smith. *Wealth of
> Nations *contains substantial discussions of the benefits to society of
> what we would call a rising standard of living for workers in Book I, Ch. 8
> and Book V, Ch. 2, Part 2, using the word "happy" or "happiness" in several
> places to describe their condition. All of this is in service to his larger
> argument comparing a growing economy to a static or declining one.
> 
> I'd add that in Book V's discussion, in Chapter 2's section on
> distinguishing "necessaries" from "luxuries," Smith's account amounts to a
> discussion of how subsistence is more than just avoiding starvation, and
> extends beyond purely nutritional minimums into socially-defined standards
> of acceptability, illustrated especially well with his discussion of shoes:
> 
> "Custom, in the same manner [as linen shirts, the previous example], has
> rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest
> creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public
> without them. In Scotland, custom has rendered them a necessary of life to
> the lowest order of men; but not to the same order of women, who may,
> without any discredit, walk about barefooted. In France they are
> necessaries neither to men nor to women, the lowest rank of both sexes
> appearing there publicly, without any discredit, sometimes in wooden shoes,
> and sometimes barefooted. Under necessaries, therefore, I comprehend not
> only those things which nature, but those things which the established
> rules of decency have rendered necessary to the lowest rank of people."
> 
> "Established rules of decency" here points to a condition that historically
> and culturally evolves, what one might call a fact of social import, that
> cannot be reduced to a purely subjective experience.
> 
> Regarding Alain's original query about Smith's obituary (thank you for the
> link), beyond the wealth/prosperity issue, I found the tone of the whole
> piece fairly hostile and dismissive. Now I'm curious about it too.
> 
> Paul Turpin
> 
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 3:00 PM Tony Aspromourgos <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > In terms of the significance of ‘wealth’ versus ‘prosperity’ in Smith’s
> > thinking, I would draw attention to his extensive use of the term
> > *opulence*. I think an examination of his use of this term will reveal
> > that he perceived progressive and liberal commercial society as leading to
> > widely distributed, high and rising consumption per capita; hence his term
> > ‘universal opulence’. I undertook a comprehensive examination of Smith’s
> > use of these terms in chapter 5 (‘Opulence and Policy’) of my 2009 *The
> > Science of Wealth: Adam Smith and the Framing of Political Economy*.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tony Aspromourgos
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> > Behalf Of *Alain Alcouffe
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, 31 March 2020 6:15 AM
> > *To:* [log in to unmask]
> > *Subject:* Re: [SHOE] Prosperity
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear colleagues
> >
> > Let me emphasize that I never pretended that prosperity could not be used
> > at the end of the 18th century or nowadays as a synonym of wealth. I did
> > not deny that Smith has used prosperity in the WN as a synonym of wealth.
> > What I searched was to understand the enigmatic conclusion of Adam Smith's
> > obituary - see
> >
> > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Times/1790/Obituary/Adam_Smith
> > <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/EuQYCP7LAXf3Wz9Quz7QnL?domain=en.wikisource.org>
> >
> > The anonymous author of this obituary (I doubt it was written by Smith)
> > made an opposition between wealth and prosperity.
> >
> > If this unknown author is not just nonsensical, we can understand this
> > opposition if we take prosperity as a synonym of fortune or wellbeing or
> > happiness.
> >
> > And it is just the opposition to be found in the contemporary debate GDP
> > versus GNH.
> >
> > I maintain that this interpretation can be sustained by the French history
> > of the word "prospérité" and by the Oxford English dictionary.
> >
> > That's all.
> >
> > Now let me add two comments :
> >
> > a) Smith read French of course but he wrote in French himself to Abbé
> > Blavet who had translated the WN into French (see, Correspondence, #Letter
> > 218, Glasgow edition)
> >
> > b) for G. Sabbagh, please remember that Smith also wrote the TMS and you
> > will find there many times prosperity opposed to adversity just as I told
> > in my reply to James.
> >
> > But that was not my point as I was trying to understand the conclusion of
> > Smith's obituary and eventually to find the author of a paper in the Tate's
> > magazine that emphasized the opposition between wealth and happiness.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > AA
> >
> > Le 30/03/2020 à 20:42, Gabriel Sabbagh a écrit :
> >
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> >
> >
> > Please allow me a simple remark.
> >
> > The best way of finding the meaning of the word prosperity in your context
> > is to go through Smith’s *Wealth of Nations and examine its occurrences
> > there.*
> >
> > It is quite easy to do this. I did it for the first 1776 edition. In my
> > opinion it confirms that *prosperity* had in 1776
> >
> > and presumably at the end of the eighteenths century a meaning very
> > similar to the one of *wealth.*
> >
> > With best wishes,
> >
> >
> >
> > Gabriel Sabbagh
> >
> >