On why Smith was a philosopher, even in The Wealth Of Nations:
"The Wealth of Nations, Tribe said, could not be a book of economics because a book of economics had to be about the economy. And there was no such thing as the economy in 1776 for a book of economics to be about. What was there? . . .
...
And I became convinced that Tribe and Foucault were right. It was, indeed, only with Ricardo that the operation of what we now say is the economy—the production, exchange, and distribution of goods and services all mediated through market exchange—was seen as something that was important enough, or separate enough, or coherent enough to be something that it made sense to write books about, and, indeed, something that it made sense to be an expert in. David Ricardo was a political economist. Adam Smith was a moral philosopher. To try—as somebody like Joseph Schumpeter was—to grade Adam Smith as if he were engaged in the same intellectual project as Schumpeter was somewhat absurd."
* * *
On why Smith was an economist
"But Tribe's (and Foucault's) methodology collapses when we work back to Books II and I of the Wealth of Nations. For Adam Smith is not the prisoner of the discursive formation of Political Oeconomy. He is not the simple bearer of currents of thought and ideas that he recombines as other authors do in more-or-less standard and repeated ways.
Adam Smith is a genius.
He is the prophet and the master of a new discipline.
He is the founder of economics.
Adam Smith is the founder of economics because he has a great and extraordinary insight: that the competitive market system is a remarkably powerful social calculating and organizing mechanism, and that the sophisticated division of labor to which a competitive market system backed up by secure and honest enforcement of property rights give rise is the key to the wealth of nations."
A fun back-and-forth, and I would add to the conversation (Economist) Brad DeLong's thoughts -- https://braddelong.substack.com/p/hoisted-from-e-archives-two-months
On why Smith was a philosopher, even in The Wealth Of Nations:
"The Wealth of Nations, Tribe said, could not be a book of economics because a book of economics had to be about the economy. And there was no such thing as the economy in 1776 for a book of economics to be about. What was there? . . .
...
And I became convinced that Tribe and Foucault were right. It was, indeed, only with Ricardo that the operation of what we now say is the economy—the production, exchange, and distribution of goods and services all mediated through market exchange—was seen as something that was important enough, or separate enough, or coherent enough to be something that it made sense to write books about, and, indeed, something that it made sense to be an expert in. David Ricardo was a political economist. Adam Smith was a moral philosopher. To try—as somebody like Joseph Schumpeter was—to grade Adam Smith as if he were engaged in the same intellectual project as Schumpeter was somewhat absurd."
* * *
On why Smith was an economist
"But Tribe's (and Foucault's) methodology collapses when we work back to Books II and I of the Wealth of Nations. For Adam Smith is not the prisoner of the discursive formation of Political Oeconomy. He is not the simple bearer of currents of thought and ideas that he recombines as other authors do in more-or-less standard and repeated ways.
Adam Smith is a genius.
He is the prophet and the master of a new discipline.
He is the founder of economics.
Adam Smith is the founder of economics because he has a great and extraordinary insight: that the competitive market system is a remarkably powerful social calculating and organizing mechanism, and that the sophisticated division of labor to which a competitive market system backed up by secure and honest enforcement of property rights give rise is the key to the wealth of nations."
Love this!!
He also highly recommends Glory Liu's book on Adam Smith in America: https://braddelong.substack.com/p/glory-liu-on-the-adam-smith-americans?s=r
Anyone want to argue he was actually a Sociologist?
The betting markets are still favoring Rebecca though...