Adam Smith, the "invisible hand" and economic philosophy.

The author of this piece has published varying forms of this same thesis in several venues. Today brings another. And while I don't doubt the sincerity of her interest in the subject, the core argument itself simply does not pass the historical smell test.

The use of Adam Smith to advise and advance prescriptive arguments as policy is not a modern Chicago School appropriation or even a 19th century invention. It dates to Smith's own lifetime, and generally with his approval. It specifically dates to 1783 when Charles James Fox invoked the Wealth of Nations in a parliamentary debate on budgeting (Smith responded by asking his publisher to release a new edition). It dates to Edmund Burke in the years that followed. The two mutually acknowledged a shared economic philosophy that cautioned against government intervention. It dates to a journey to London in which Smith accompanied a future Prime Minister Lord Shelburne and, over the course of the trip, converted him to the doctrine of free trade.

Nor is the "invisible hand" metaphor a modern popularisation. It already achieved wide use in the late 19th and early 20th century econ profession, and generally in the way that Friedman deployed it at a much later date. It was also acknowledged as such across the political spectrum of economists. Attributing that to the Chicago School or Friedman's writings in the 1960's is simply an error.

While Smith scholarship legitimately entails investigation of how his work influenced later ideas, it also requires basic things like getting the story correct. This one increasingly looks like an incorrect story that its author wants to be true, but also around which the evidence simply does not align. Unfortunately it also seems to be gaining currency because a number of Friedman's modern detractors want it to be true as well, albeit for reasons that differ from the author's.