Timeline for Adam Smith and universal opulence

8 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
May 29, 2017 at 11:34	history	edited	luchonacho	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 180 characters in body
May 29, 2017 at 10:34	history	edited	luchonacho	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 155 characters in body
May 29, 2017 at 10:13	history	edited	luchonacho	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 100 characters in body
May 29, 2017 at 9:50	history	edited	luchonacho	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 866 characters in body
May 28, 2017 at 14:12	history	edited	luchonacho	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 1565 characters in body
May 27, 2017 at 15:03	comment	added	luchonacho		@NanheeByrnesPhD I made an attempt not so much of refuting Smith, but "excusing" him of why his view did not took place, using some recent research. But thinking more carefully, I think you are right. But then, how else can you defend Smith? The only option remaining is perhaps, to assume that because of not minimal government, trade had not benefited everyone. But this seems almost impossible to defend. If a move from more state to less state lead to higher inequality, it is a bit naive to think that a further move to a very minimal government would bring about universal opulence.
May 26, 2017 at 19:01	comment	added	Nanhee Byrnes PhD		Thanks for the through response! Your #1 response fits well with Mancur Olson's The Logic of Collective Action. #2, I was hoping more along the line of defending Smith, rather than refuting him. Smith surely thought free trade would lead to global universal opulence.
May 26, 2017 at 18:43	history	answered	luchonacho	CC BY-SA 3.0