After reading both volumes, “Economic Thought Before Adam Smith” and “Classical Economics”, I have a dislike for Adam Smith… anyone here feel the same way?
I think that’s the point.
“After reading both volumes, “Economic Thought Before Adam Smith” and “Classical Economics”, I have a dislike for Adam Smith… anyone here feel the same way?”
<= You should take Rothbard’s assessment with a grain of salt. At least one Adam Smith scholar I’ve read really criticizes Rothbard’s assessment.
And in general; Rothbard was just a bad historian of economic thought as far as I can tell. Unfortunately.
And in general; Rothbard was just a bad historian of economic thought as far as I can tell. Unfortunately.
Really? Any particular articles aside from those written by David Friedman that details this? Do you prefer Schumpeter
Well; I don’t know any scholar that has given a positive review of Rothbard’s vision of the history of economic thought. I’ve read an Adam Smith scholar criticizing Rothbard’s assessment. I think it was Lilburne a while ago who criticized Rothbard’s view on Bacon. Callahan demolished Rothbard’s take on Hegel on his blog. The only thing I keep finding is people saying: ‘well, Rothbard has got this author completely wrong’. The book was also basically an in house publication; it was never put to the test of Rothbard’s peers in the profession.
Rothbard tried to do to much in to short of a time. And quality paid for it. Too bad.
I’m not an expert on the history of economic thought itself. I just don’t think Rothbard’s books are great, given the reviews I keep finding of him.
The only people I know that really defend the book, are just fans of Rothbards himself. And there is nothing wrong with being a fan, but you can’t comment on the quality of the book without any real knowledge of what Rothbard’s writing about. I’m not expert myself, but I can’t find any good reviews, more: I keep bumping into negative reviews and the overall theme seems to be ‘Rothbard has gotten this author wrong’ or what not.
Feel free to take this with a grain of salt.
Oh; I would recommend Thomas Sowell, though.
Leland Yeager, Roger Backhouse and Salim Rashid (none of whom are particularly as far as I can tell “Austrian”, let alone “Rothbardian”) are 3 that I can think of from the top of my head, though I’m sure there are more. Not sure what I can make of Rothbard’s work in terms of accuracy myself, though I do find it a heck of an enjoyable read.
Yeager is an Austrian economist?
In any case; Yeager doesn’t comment on wether or not Rothbard is accurate. (I reread the review to be sure.) He has a lot of nice words to say. Endorsing accuracy, however, isn’t one of them. Note this:
“The degree of documentation given for specific statements varies among sections of the two volumes. Even an occasional direct quotation goes without citation. Trivial lapses like these, coupled with my own merely amateur knowledge of Rothbard’s subject matter, keep me from authoritatively vouching for the accuracy of his every statement.”
I wasn’t aware of the review of Backhouse or Rashid. But to they actually endorse Rothbards assessments?
And Salim Rashid is Rothbards main source for his assessment of Adam Smith. 
He probably won’t criticize that part of Rothbard, now will he?
I didn’t realise that, good point…
I think this translates into something bigger. Like horrible chess players who fall in love with certain pieces, some individuals cling too tightly to their fav intellectuals.
And Salim Rashid is Rothbards main source for his assessment of Adam Smith.
I thought it was Schumpeter.
Here is Roger Garrison’s take on Adam Smith. It looks like he is in agreement with Rothbard.