In reading my Intro Huamnities textbook, I cam upon the following passage:
The economic philosopher Adam Smith (17-1790) believed that the perfect society was one in which all the people were free to pursue their self-interest.
I’m no expert on Adam Smith, that seems to be a mischaracterization. Did he really believe that that was how a “perfect society” would be?
The textbook then goes on to state that Adam Smith failed to predict that firms would collude, case in point being OPEC. But isn’t open a cartel of governments, not private firms?
Edit: The passage is from my Humanities textbook, not my Art History textbook.
Ad hominem! You’re attacking the book itself instead of its argument. [:D] Anyway, I’m surprised by the amount of economics found my social sciences courses, particularly, Intro to Humanities and Art History and Philosophy. I think most college students learn their economics from the non-strictly economics, social science courses. Btw, I made a mistake. The passage is from my Humanities textbook.
That’s just wrong all over the place. First, you’re right that OPEC can’t be considered a cartel of private firms. But also Smith thought collusion DOES happen all the time…
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” (Wealth of Nations)
So humanities professors think Adam Smith was a 1773 year old utopian egoist. No wonder they are so able to engage with his ideas in a coherent fashion.