Does anybody know if Kennedy’s critique of Rothbard’s portrayal of Adam Smith has been responded to? It was written many years after Rothbard’s death, but I am wondering whether anybody else has joined the discussion.
No clue, but thanks for the read. I thought the Wealth of Nations was really great, and Rothbard’s criticisms of it and Smith always seemd kind of sketchy to me, but I’m hardly competent to respond.
Rothbard is indeed quite harsh towards Adam Smith, as if it were Smith’s fault that the world didn’t pay much attention to the economical thinkers before him.
But yeah, I understand that Rothbard was more like trying to correct some injustices and would go a bit overboard.
Kennedy:
lol. I thought for a second there that Kennedy was going to be sympathetic to Austrian economics.
Yea, humility in presentation is, unfortunately, not a strong suit of Austrians at times. I say “unfortunately” because it really backfires when Austrians (i.e. Rothbard) subsequently go on to get some of their facts wrong.
Reisman also defends the classical labor theory of value from any possible link with Marxism, although I think his defense is a bit weak (although, I admit, I am not well read in the classics). Reisman tries to defend Ricardo on account that the labor theory of value could make sense if it were a similar doctrine to Reisman’s cost of production doctrine, but from what I’ve read of the classics it doesn’t seem as if this is remotely the case (and, I don’t think Reisman’s cost of production doctrine has anything to do with cost of production, anyways).
the above was a fascinating blogpost. i haven’t read wealth of nations, but kennedy certainly is an authority on adam smith, and not one to be dismissed glibly.