Search

When The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, this was recognized as another work by the author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, a work that Smith extended and revised through six editions until the year he died, in 1790. Smith had in 1776 refrained from elaborating arguments that he had already made in 1759, and this was likely well understood by his contemporaries. But by the later 1790s The Theory of Moral Sentiments was no longer so widely read and was becoming regarded as dated in its approach. Smith had located the nature and causes of the wealth of nations in human attributes and prudent policy; detached from the context provided by The Theory of Moral Sentiments, The Wealth of Nations was now treated as a repository of economic principles that required criticism and correction. It was quickly converted into the founding text of a new political economy, exemplified by the French translation by Garnier (1802), Jean-Baptiste Say's Traité (1803), and of course David Ricardo's Principles (1817). Political economists of the early nineteenth century disregarded most of those features of The Wealth of Nations that have since the later 1970s been reemphasized by new scholarship; that the Glasgow edition began publication for the 1976 bicentenary of The Wealth of Nations was at the time thought only fitting for a writer then treated as the property of economists. But by comparing Ricardo's Principles with Smith's Wealth of Nations we can better understand that this foreshortened appreciation of Adam Smith's work has a longer history than usually thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The term "Say's Law" was introduced in the twentieth century by an American economist, Fred Manville Taylor. To this date, no research has thoroughly investigated how the term came to be and what it really meant in Taylor's writings. This paper aims to examine how Taylor defined and used it. Drawing upon Taylor's publications and archival sources, we show that Taylor coined the term in direct reference to Jean-Baptiste Say's writings. Simply put, Say's Law was defined by Taylor as the principle that "total demand must in the long run coincide with the total product or output of goods produced for the market." Taylor never defined Say's Law as "the impossibility of demand deficiency as a cause of recession." Like Say, Taylor acknowledged that general demand deficiency could cause economic crises. In such scenarios, public expenditures could have expansionary effects, a position that Say also supported. Taylor rightly credited Say with the earliest and clearest formulation of the law of outlets (loi des débouchés), and in doing so he correctly interpreted the essence of Say's thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]