"Casting Smith as a Moral Theorist Who Was Also, Ultimately, a Defender of Commercial Society Misunderstands Him as a Thinker"

"Can Smith still speak to us if he ends up offering a vision of political realism that does not commend one set of actions over another? For Sagar, he can, though only faintly and from a distance. Sagar's Adam Smith does not loudly proclaim the virtues or vices of the market, but he does beg us to consider what kind of commercial society we live in. Does the rule of law guarantee our basic security of life and possessions from the violent domination of private actors, either individuals or groups? What happens when wealth and power align in the lawmaking process? What kind of politics do we want in a commercial society?"

Glory Liu at The Nation reviews Paul Sagar's Adam Smith Reconsidered: History, Liberty, and the Foundations of Modern Politics.

"Any Business Deal Appears Like a Small Battle in a Never-Ending War for Financial Supremacy"

"His rejection of Friedman's vision of trade is clearly not a considered view but a gut reaction. The story he tells himself about capitalism is one that involves a high-stakes game of winners and losers—those who beat, and those who get beaten. As such, it seems axiomatic to him: In any deal, whether it involves individuals or independent nations, only one side can win. As a matter of economic science, Donald Trump may be wrong, but with respect to the sensibility that guides his approach to business and colors his understanding of capitalism, it may be the case that the GOP nominee is simply a man of his time—and ours."

John Paul Rollert at The Atlantic describes Donald Trump as an avatar of "Sociopathic Capitalism."

Consummatum est

"In 1900, many reformers looked for answers to questions about social reform, social responsibility, and consumer representation. Climate change is its own monumental challenge, but there may be lessons that can be learned from that earlier history of the consumer. Consumers were identified as important players in tackling social blight and economic injustice. As buyers, they had some influence over what was produced, its quality as well as quantity. Organizing their interests added an important voice to the arena of public politics. These remain valuable insights: Consumers may not hold the answers for everything, but that does not mean they should be treated as merely individual shoppers in the market."

Frank Trentmann at The Atlantic discusses "How Humans Became 'Consumers.'"

"The Turn Toward Capitalism"

"Today, confronting the twin pressures of mounting income inequality and escalating concerns about climate change, partisans of economic growth face stronger opposition than at any time in decades. Even if continued growth were desirable, an increasing number of economists are convinced that a decrease from the last century’s norm will be unavoidable in the century ahead. It is a strange tableau: while economists speculate on growth's decline, a swath of the historical profession, eager to challenge the tyranny of economists, has attempted to make modernity into the story of economic growth—a story that the economists of a prior generation did more than any other group to canonize. Understanding how we arrived at this intellectual crossroads requires a history of its own."


Timothy Shenk in The Nation looks at the rise of "capitalism studies."

A Cross of Bitcoin

"Smith is often treated as a conservative patron saint, and he did indeed make the original case for free markets. It’s less often mentioned, however, that he also argued strongly for bank regulation—and that he offered a classic paean to the virtues of paper currency. Money, he understood, was a way to facilitate commerce, not a source of national prosperity—and paper money, he argued, allowed commerce to proceed without tying up much of a nation’s wealth in a 'dead stock' of silver and gold.

"So why are we tearing up the highlands of Papua New Guinea to add to our dead stock of gold and, even more bizarrely, running powerful computers 24/7 to add to a dead stock of digits?"

In The New York Times, Paul Krugman takes on virtual currency.

The Guru of Selfishness?

"Smith saw the task of political economy as the pursuit of 'two distinct objects': 'first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and second, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services'. He defended such public services as free education and poverty relief, while demanding greater freedom for the in­digent who receives support than the rather punitive Poor Laws of his day permitted. Beyond his attention to the components and responsibilities of a well-functioning market system (such as the role of accountability and trust), he was deeply concerned about the inequality and poverty that might remain in an otherwise successful market economy. Even in dealing with regulations that restrain the markets, Smith additionally acknowledged the importance of interventions on behalf of the poor and the underdogs of society. At one stage, he gives a formula of disarming simplicity: 'When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.'"

Amartya Sen in The New Statesman reclaims Adam Smith from market fundamentalists.