Adam Smith’s Unnaturally Natural (nonetheless Naturally Unnatural) use of the Word Natural

Natural and nature are complex words, fraught with ambiguity and contradiction. This paper does not attempt to give a complete account of Smith\u27s use of these words. However, it does demonstrate that Smith did not necessarily approve of what he called natural or nature . Economists and others who assume otherwise are in error. A study, analysis, and/or interpretation of Smith\u27s work which depends upon this (at times unstated) assumption - that Smith necessarily approved of nature or the natural - needs to be read with great care; perhaps even incredulity.

(Review) Pierre Force, Self-Interest Before Adam Smith: A Genealogy of Economic Science

Pierre Force, Self-Interest Before Adam Smith: A Genealogy of Economic Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. ix, 279, $65.00. ISBN 0-52183060-5

Adam Smith on the Virtues: A Partial Resolution of the Adam Smith Problem

Adam Smith\u27s definition of justice as a moral virtue based on the passion of resentment in \u27The Theory of Moral Sentiments\u27 (1759), despite seeming contradictions, supports his analysis of an acquisitive, commercial society in \u27The Wealth of Nations\u27 (1774) partly by precluding the concept of a just price

(Review) Self-Interest Before Adam Smith: A Genealogy of Economic Science

Pierre Force, Self-Interest Before Adam Smith: A Genealogy of Economic Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. ix, 279, $65.00. ISBN 0-521 83060-5

Aristotle\u27s Difficult Relationship With Modern Economic Theory

This paper reviews Aristotle\u27s problematic relationship with modern economic theory. It argues that in terms of value and income distribution theory, Aristotle should probably be seen as a precursor to neither classical nor neoclassical economic thought. Indeed, there are strong arguments to be made that Aristotle\u27s views are completely at odds with all modern economic theory, since, among other things, he was not necessarily concerned with flexible market prices, opposed the use of money to acquire more money, and did not think that the unintended consequences of human activity were generally beneficial. The paper argues however, that this interpretation goes too far. The Benthamite neoclassical theory of choice can be seen as a dumbing down of Aristotle\u27s theory, applicable to animals, not humans. Adam Smith and Karl Marx were deeply influenced by Aristotle\u27s work and both started their main economic works with Aristotle: Smith ultimately rejecting, and Marx ultimately developing Aristotle\u27s views of the use of money to acquire more money. Possibilities for the future development of a new Aristotelian Economics are explored