I have the words of my History of Economic Thought professor, Elba Brown-Collier, indelibly imprinted in my mind: “You can’t understand _Wealth of Nations_ if you haven’t understood _Theory of Moral Sentiments_.”
I believe that is mistaken. But the particular error here indicated—that self-interested behavior is animal selfishness—can sometimes be avoided by reading the latter, earlier work.
Usually, though, reading it issues in what the Germans, with their gift for the inelegant word, call das Adam-Smith-Problem, “resolved” by some notion of paradox, rather than in the correct understanding of both of Smith’s works in the same behavior that Dr. Graboyes is trying to communicate.
It is the common experience of economics teachers, among others, that most minds resist ideas that violate their priors. Mr. Gould, thinking of you.
It seems to me that, applying the words you wrote to the music you wrote, that cicadas must have a sense that their time is short after they emerge from the ground. The cicada chorus in your composition sings one note in one rhythm, presumably like the songs people sung before Prometheus. The syncopation and melody come from someone counting his days.
Typically profound ideas presented in a marshmallow shell. Thanks!
I think common mistake when alluding to Adam Smith is conflating self interest with selfishness. As an example if I give charity because it makes me feel good that is in my self interest but not selfish. I used to, in office meetings with my staff, say we may be the most expensive practice in the area but we give the patients real value for their money and treat them like they deserve our best every day. That was in our self interest. After, now retiring, some of my former students who see my former patients tell me I am missed. So my self interest aligned with the self interest of my patients. If I just charged more and gave less that selfishness would have resulted no less than my 43 year practice. I also agree both of Adam Smiths works should be read and are as true today as the day he wrote them.
As someone who has read Adam Smith, I find very few people who talk about him have actually read him.
Same as de Tocqueville.
I have never read Tocqueville so I never bother acting like I have.
This kind of criticism is common, and reached a peak over The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray. One essayist called it bullcrit.
I have the words of my History of Economic Thought professor, Elba Brown-Collier, indelibly imprinted in my mind: “You can’t understand _Wealth of Nations_ if you haven’t understood _Theory of Moral Sentiments_.”
I believe that is mistaken. But the particular error here indicated—that self-interested behavior is animal selfishness—can sometimes be avoided by reading the latter, earlier work.
Usually, though, reading it issues in what the Germans, with their gift for the inelegant word, call das Adam-Smith-Problem, “resolved” by some notion of paradox, rather than in the correct understanding of both of Smith’s works in the same behavior that Dr. Graboyes is trying to communicate.
It is the common experience of economics teachers, among others, that most minds resist ideas that violate their priors. Mr. Gould, thinking of you.
You are, of course, entitled to your belief.
It is so good of you to concede me that.
It seems to me that, applying the words you wrote to the music you wrote, that cicadas must have a sense that their time is short after they emerge from the ground. The cicada chorus in your composition sings one note in one rhythm, presumably like the songs people sung before Prometheus. The syncopation and melody come from someone counting his days.
Typically profound ideas presented in a marshmallow shell. Thanks!
I think common mistake when alluding to Adam Smith is conflating self interest with selfishness. As an example if I give charity because it makes me feel good that is in my self interest but not selfish. I used to, in office meetings with my staff, say we may be the most expensive practice in the area but we give the patients real value for their money and treat them like they deserve our best every day. That was in our self interest. After, now retiring, some of my former students who see my former patients tell me I am missed. So my self interest aligned with the self interest of my patients. If I just charged more and gave less that selfishness would have resulted no less than my 43 year practice. I also agree both of Adam Smiths works should be read and are as true today as the day he wrote them.
Well spoken, Mr. C!