Comments (12)

• Jack Maturin

  The book is ordered and on its way to the UK. Thank you for making this book available at a buyable price, in what looks like a great new edition. Previously, at $200 dollars, I had several barrels of fish and a couple of horses ahead of it in my preference queue. Now you've got it up there to number one. The free market triumphs once again; I'm sure Uncle Murray up there, wherever he is, would be proud of you.

  Published: January 12, 2006 4:47 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  I just knew there was a good reason I kept putting off reading The Wealth of Nations. Now I can articulate my excuse!
  

  Published: January 13, 2006 9:03 AM

• RS Weir

  After reading this tract I am once again struck by the depth of Murray's knowledge and his grasp of history--all this and an economist to boot!

  Published: January 13, 2006 6:13 PM

• Josh Menold

  We live in a world where controversy breeds financial success. Hollywood has done the best with this and now everyone is catching on. Challenge what others believe and write a book about it. Nex thing you know you have started a new movement. No one verifies your information but it is a new way to look at things and you have discredited your opponent. If you have to attack the integrity of your opponent and build a case then you have failed from the start. Rothbard was full of himself and he definitely proved that.

  Published: January 13, 2006 7:12 PM

• Bob from Seattle

  Josh, the irony of your post made me cackle like I picture Dr. Rothbard would have.

  Published: January 13, 2006 7:34 PM

• Roger M

  Great excerpt! Can't wait to get the books. I became disenchanted with Smith when researching the history of capitalism. Jan de Vries has an excellent book, "The First Modern Economy," which proves that The Dutch Republic of the 17th century enjoyed a laissez-faire economy almost 200 years before Smith. De Vries doesn't delve into Dutch economic thinking at the time, but in my search, all I could find was the influence of the late Scholastics, especially through Grotius. I began to suspect then that economics had taken a wrong turn at Smith. Thanks to Rothbard and other Austrians, we are back on the right track. Now we just need someone with the charisma of Keynes to tack control of mainstream econ.

  Published: January 14, 2006 11:36 AM

• Vasile Rotaru

  Is the fragment about rather reliynig on butcher's selfishness than his "humanity" Smith's invention?

  And what about the invisible hand?

  I have read the "The wealth of nations" and rather liked it..

  I can agree that Adam Smith was not "die-hard" liberal/libertarian, and rather a .. "enlightened statist"(??) cornered into liberalism by arguments he cannnot refute, but isn't that what make him so influential?

  Published: January 15, 2006 4:10 AM

• jeffrey

  Actually MNR addresses both the invisible hand and the butcher point in the full essay. Here MNR defends Smith against critics. But then he shows that Smith was far from consistent in the application of these ideas.

  Published: January 15, 2006 5:40 AM

• Vanmind

  I bought this set as soon as I saw it promoted here.

  Like Rand, Smith always rubbed me the wrong way--but until now I hesitated to say anything against such a "father" of modern market economics.

  Rand, however, I'll trash anytime, anywhere; she deserves no less.

  Published: January 15, 2006 3:47 PM

• Alan Dunn

  Personally, I think people should read Smith, read Rothbards book,read perhaps Hollanders book on Smith - then form an opinion.

  As good as Rothbards book may be it is but one interpretation. The more interpretations we have of any body of work the better we are able to form our own position on the matter.

  Blind allegiance to one person's work without checking out the alternatives is not a very sound policy.

  For example nobody would doubt the ability of Newton, but blind allegience towards his work basically crippled British mathematics for 150 years.

  Have to admit though, at the price Rothbards book looks like an absolute bargain.

  Published: January 20, 2006 12:55 AM

• Dr G. Kennedy

  I have written a four part (with a final fifth to follow this weekend) critique of Murray Rothbard's chapter on 'The Adam Smith Myth', entitled 'Murray Rothbard's Myths' on my Blog: www.adamsmithslostlegacy.com

  For such a distinguished economist to write a tendentious piece of such poor scholarship, I was most surprised (I am reading Mises 'Human Action' and found its quality way above Rothbard's polemic).

  Published: January 20, 2006 4:02 PM

• Pippa

  In regards to the last comment concerning the reading of adam smith wealth of nations it's a very long read, but you don’t have to buy it, as its so old that you can find free copies of his book on the internet. I have located this book by adam smith on the following website as a free online readable version:

  http://www.adam-smith-wealth-of-nations.co.uk

  Happy reading, Hope this has been of some help
  

  Published: June 3, 2006 10:21 AM