I have to confess I found the Planet Money piece troublesome back at the
time the link appeared.  Its a while back now, I expected to forget the
matter, but find I did not.

As I heard it, it introduces the widely met and deeply entrenched idea that
Adam Smith was fundamentally associated with matters of self interest - the
matter was introduced and never subsequently challenged.  

The suggestion seems to me very misleading.   Political economies
fundamentally associated with self interest (via widespread retailing in
market places) emerged in Lydia probably just before 600 BC, and rapidly
spread throughout much of Eurasia over the next three centuries.  This
matter has no especial link with Adam Smith at all.  It is found near
universally.  

However, as I read Smith, he did have strong views on a more specific matter
to do with his opposition to the “mercantile system”. That was to do with
protecting individual and small business access to markets, and more
exactly, protecting them from the influence of bigger businesses who he felt
had an undue influence over 18th century government polices.

The vital point Adam Smith actually made does not seem to me original
either.  It seems to me we find it in Tudor times too – according to
Tawney’s account of the English monopoly debates of around 1600. 

Also in Gale’s piece from Ancient Han China (The Salt and Iron Debate) which
as I best recall made this point very succinctly:  “There is no undergrowth
under big trees.”

For my own part, my abiding reaction is that the piece thereby does more
harm than good.  

Perhaps an eccentric view?

Robert Tye, York, UK