----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- T R ("Bob") Malthus in the first essay remarks that mixed in with Smith's inquiry in the wealth of nations there is another, more interesting, inquiry, that of the happiness of nations, i.e., the well-being of the majority. A paper of mine a few years ago in EJHET sweated the details, arguing that Smith is what one might call a "robust utilitarian," someone interested in the well-being of the median. Hollander's "Malthus" independently reads Malthus as using the majority's well-being as norm. I think the problem comes up because we read back post-Edgeworth results -- the "greatest happiness for/of the greatest number" is incoherent -- and not worry too much about what folks like Smith and Paley might have made of Hutchison's slogan. Are we to maximize the mean or maximize the median? Smith is a clear as a bell that the distribution of income is skewed so this won't be the same problem. David Levy ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]