I found Tony's discussion of Adam Smith's meaning of the word "wealth" very
much in accord with what I and probably most people think Smith meant. But
that is in English. What I have found so notable about the earlier postings
is the way "wealth" is translated. Does someone who reads the words, "the
wealth of nations", but in a different language, hear something different?
Would someone who comes across the book in French (or Turkish) think it is
about "the opulence of nations"? A book like Piketty's, for all its sales,
does not seem to have become much of an influence in English speaking
countries. What I am getting at is this: when someone reads "richesse" in
French, do they think of Versailles rather than pin factories?

On 19 June 2015 at 08:48, Tony Aspromourgos <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

>  Colleagues,
>
>
>
> I published a very detailed interpretation of Smith's political economy
> and the prehistory of its fundamental concepts in 2009 - as it happens,
> with the title, *The Science of Wealth* (Routledge). One of those
> fundamental concepts, of course, is "wealth". An exhaustive examination of *all
> *Smith's uses of that term, in all his writings (pp. 30-35 of my book)
> makes it clear that wealth is not understood as a stock, but rather (in
> relation to nations), as the flow of annual national product. I may add
> that the sense in which Smith's political economy is a science of "wealth"
> I think also is about its materialism: Smith's science is about the
> production and distribution of material things (not, e.g., a science of
> choice, and not primarily a psychological science).
>
>
>
> Tony Aspromourgos
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on behalf
> of Wells, Julian [[log in to unmask]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 18 June 2015 9:32 PM
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [SHOE] "the science of wealth (of nations)"
>
>   I don’t know to what extent the 18th century would have understood
> “wealth” in the sense of a particular private stock of riches but, to the
> extent that it did so understand it, Smith’s title could have been read as
> a pointed reference to the mercantilist ideas that the book is devoted to
> rebutting (but recall that defence is more important than opulence: WN
> IV.ii.30: 464-5).
>
>
>
> Julian
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *Steve Kates
> *Sent:* 18 June 2015 05:33
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [SHOE] "the science of wealth (of nations)"
>
>
>
>
>
> It has seemed to me for a while that the title, *The Wealth of Nations*,
> is an eighteenth century use of words and is somewhat misleading as to the
> point that Smith was making. I have tried to find a modern phrase that
> would capture what he meant, and the closest I have been able to come to
> is: *The Prosperity of Nations*. "Wealth" has a kind of treasure chest
> notion to it (which it may not have had back then), and the word "wealthy"
> is tied to personal riches, which is not at all, I think, what Smith was
> trying to get at. So when I read that the French for "wealth" is
> "richesse", or that my google translator turns "*The Wealth of Nations"*
> into "*la richesse des nations*", I really do therefore wonder how much
> has been lost in translation. Because when I translate the English word
> "riches" into French, it gives me "richesse" once again. The alternative
> French to English of "richesse" are "wealth", "richness", "riches", "rich"
> and "affluent". And for the French word "*riche*" we get these English
> translations: "rich", "wealthy", "affluent", "opulent", "splendid" and
> "luxurious". Each of them seem totally inadequate to making sense of what
> Smith had in mind or what the book is about. This seems to me more than
> just a curiosity.
>
>
>
> On 16 June 2015 at 17:58, Deniz T. Kilincoglu <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
> I'm trying to trace the source of translating "economics" as "the science
> of wealth" (and sometimes "the science of the wealth of nations") in late
> nineteenth-century Ottoman-Turkish.
> Ottoman economists most probably rendered it from French ("la science de
> la richesse"), from popular sources preceding the 1860s.
> I could find expressions like "l'économie politique est la science de la
> richesse" in many economic texts from the era, but I'm trying to understand
> how common it was to use "la science de la richesse" instead of or
> interchangeably with "l’économie politique" referring to the discipline
> itself.
> Many thanks in advance for your responses.
> Best,
> Deniz
>
>
>  --
>
> Deniz T. Kilincoglu, PhD
>
>
>
> Economics Program
>
> Middle East Technical University
>
> Northern Cyprus Campus, T-141
>
> Kalkanlı, Güzelyurt, KKTC
>
> via Mersin 10, Turkey
>
> Telephone: +90 392 661 3017
>
>
>
> Just published: *Economics and Capitalism in the Ottoman Empire
> <http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9781138854062/>*, Routledge, 2015.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Dr Steven Kates
> Associate Professor
>
> School of Economics, Finance
>     and Marketing
> RMIT University
> Building 80
>
> Level 11 / 445 Swanston Street
> Melbourne Vic 3000
>
> Phone: (03) 9925 5878
> Mobile: 042 7297 529
>



-- 

Dr Steven Kates
Associate Professor
School of Economics, Finance
    and Marketing
RMIT University
Building 80
Level 11 / 445 Swanston Street
Melbourne Vic 3000

Phone: (03) 9925 5878
Mobile: 042 7297 529