WI Adam Smith never published "The Wealth of Nations"
- Thread starter Bishop
- Start date
Philip
Donor
Somebody else would have published something similar. Wealth of Nations was not a revolutionary text. Rather, it was an excellent summary and defense of emerging theory and practice. IIRC, there was a Swede (although I don't recall his name) who anticipated much of Smith's work.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Dutch appeared to know pretty good what needed to be done to spur the economy - a hundred years earlier, or so.
So there must have been enough theory available - just the same infighting which keeps many countries even in our time from making the right decisions, probably worsened by widespread more or less absolutist monarchies in most of the world of that time - their leaders usually don't like reforms, and the ones who do often get removed by other people who are afraid to loose when things change.
But I think Britain might not have become quite as dominant over the next few centuries - thus making maybe the Netherlands bigger, or France. That would probably also change India's history.
If no easy-to-read documentation about economic policy was written by anyone, Prussia might not have had such a jump-start from nowhere - it might even have become part of a bigger Poland or Denmark instead. That might make Bavaria or the Rhineland the driving force of a pretty different German unification (if the Holy Roman Empire falls similar to OTL).
So there must have been enough theory available - just the same infighting which keeps many countries even in our time from making the right decisions, probably worsened by widespread more or less absolutist monarchies in most of the world of that time - their leaders usually don't like reforms, and the ones who do often get removed by other people who are afraid to loose when things change.
But I think Britain might not have become quite as dominant over the next few centuries - thus making maybe the Netherlands bigger, or France. That would probably also change India's history.
If no easy-to-read documentation about economic policy was written by anyone, Prussia might not have had such a jump-start from nowhere - it might even have become part of a bigger Poland or Denmark instead. That might make Bavaria or the Rhineland the driving force of a pretty different German unification (if the Holy Roman Empire falls similar to OTL).
The thing is, is there much evidence that the Wealth of Nations actually changed things? The ideas were already there, it seems likely that someone somewhere would write them down.
I tend to think Ricardo is more important than Smith anyway. Wiki claims Ricardo was influenced to begin thinking about economics after reading Wealth of Nations, so that could be a considerable change. Assuming ofcourse he doesn't just read another book which says much the same.
But then comparative advantage for example doesn't exactly come across as a revolutionary idea. Someone somewhere should have been able to think of it.
I tend to think Ricardo is more important than Smith anyway. Wiki claims Ricardo was influenced to begin thinking about economics after reading Wealth of Nations, so that could be a considerable change. Assuming ofcourse he doesn't just read another book which says much the same.
But then comparative advantage for example doesn't exactly come across as a revolutionary idea. Someone somewhere should have been able to think of it.
Anders Chydenius. A Finn, actually, but certainly a subject of the Swedish realm. We used to have his picture on the thousand mark bill before these dull euros. (Not that I saw him much during that time, though.
)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Chydenius
Philip
Donor
Yes, it did change things. Its primary effect was to bring the theories to light and give them a firm basis for acceptance.
Thanks.
I stand corrected.
