Rothbard on Adam Smith

[heiss93]

I thought this was an interesting article on the links between Adam Smith and the labor theory of value. Rothbard claims that the subjectivist theory of value was already dominant in the 1700s, and that Smith actually attacked the dominant view. While Rothbard intends to discredit Smith, I think for use leftists in helps support the view that Marx and not the neoclassicals are the heirs to classical economy.

http://mises.org/web/2691

[IcarusAngel]

Even though it may help a Marxist argument citing Rothbard for anything, anywhere probably isn't going to get you a lot of credibility research. He was known for his poor research and understanding of issues.

His claim that Adam Smith was a blatant plagiarist is not shown to be true in that article. That the Labor Theory of Value is worthless and that Smith "never made any contributions to economics" is also ridiculous. Rothbard is probably thinking of himself.

[Skooma Addict]

Even though it may help a Marxist argument citing Rothbard for anything, anywhere probably isn't going to get you a lot of credibility research. He was known for his poor research and understanding of issues.

His claim that Adam Smith was a blatant plagiarist is not shown to be true in that article. That the Labor Theory of Value is worthless and that Smith "never made any contributions to economics" is also ridiculous. Rothbard is probably thinking of himself.

You didn't even read the entire article. I know this because you posted 7 minutes after the topic was created.

[heiss93]

I think implicitly most Neoclassicals share the same assumptions as Rothbard, but are less honest about it, instead paying lip-service to Adam Smith as their founder.

Rothbard's history actually hurts his own cause. It turns out Adam Smith was not a fool who couldn't grasp that supply and demand determined prices. According to Rothbard proto-marginalism was already the domiant theory of price. So the Smithian labor theory of value was a revolution against an already existing subjective theory of value.

By showing the long history of subjectivist theory of value, Rothbard make LTV even more of a scientific revolution, and rightly highlights that Marx is the logical outcome of Smith and Ricardo.

[Left-Reasoning]

By showing the long history of subjectivist theory of value, Rothbard make LTV even more of a scientific revolution, and rightly highlights that Marx is the logical outcome of Smith and Ricardo.

Comrade, Smith's labor theory shunted economics onto the wrong path from which it was eventually rescued by the marginalists.

The history of economics is not one path extending farther and farther into the light. It is a series of fits of enlightenment and then stagnation or even regression.

[Zanthorus]

Comrade, Smith's labor theory shunted economics onto the wrong path from which it was eventually rescued by the marginalists.

How so? IMO, It shunted them along the correct path toward the abolition of capitalism until the proponents of marginal utility shunted it along the road toward meaningless subjectivist gibberish.

[Demogorgon]

You didn't even read the entire article. I know this because you posted 7 minutes after the topic was created.How do you know that he hadn't previously read it?

Anyway, it is pretty silly. Nobody seriously claims that Smith "invented" economics. Rothbard may have a point that Anglo-American economists have downplayed continental theorists, but to deny Smith's importance is ridiculous.

Rothbard's criticisms (apart from the inevitable horror that Smith did not share certain assumptions that Rothbard held dear) seem to hinge mainly on certain mistakes made that in the light of modern knowledge look absurd. But these issues tend to be peripheral to his overall arguments, but Rothbard emphasises them to the extent that one would think they are central aspects of Smith's work.

The whole thing therefore looks more like an attempt to discredit Smith in the hope of putting the reader off his central arguments-arguments that Rothbard wisely skirts. It is really just a hatchet job against a thinker that Rothbard disapproves of and an attempt to talk up Rothbard's own obscure views.

On another note, Rothbard doesn't really understand the religious situation in Scotland and as a result draws some wrong conclusions regarding the religious influence on Smith. But as that is probably of no interest to anyone except me, I should really leave it at that.