SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Eric Schliesser)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:19:10 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
I think Larry and Humberto are both on the right track.  My impression is 
that Smith distinguishes between projector and venturer on the basis of 
risk.  Hence his bias against visionary types, whose utopian projects do 
undermine the prudential values Smith deems important.  This will often 
look like an ex post perspective.   Nevertheless, (an estimate of) risk is 
reflected in the rate of interest at which the project is financed, and this 
is available from the start.  If I am not mistaken Smith's discussion is 
motivated, too, by concerns about how projectors  -- borrowing at high rates 
--displace more viable and productive investments. 
 
Bentham's letter on Usury should be mentioned as an insightful early 
response to Adam Smith, especially for those interested in the early 
recognition of the importance of entrepeneurs. 
 
Eric Schliesser 
Department of Philosophy 
University of Chicago 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2