Comment 28597

By Con black (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2009 at 16:07:03

Whoa there, calm down a little. I too was disappointed in the article, mostly because it is lightweight and too short to be anything more than a cursory reminder of Smith.

What's annoying is the article, or the editing, leaves it difficult to know whether Foster is trying to channel Smith ideologically, or making weak arguments for what he might say, or siding with him. So you can criticize Foster for imprecision, but who knows what he was thinking so I wouldn't go beyond that.

Like the Bible, it's folly to take anything Smith said in a concrete way, because so much is so different today that it can only serve as useful in isolated economic conditions: minimal global trade, little public infrastructure, little mechanization, minimal attention to human health and environmental pollution, and lack of cheap fuel that Smith grew up with.

The rest of the magazine is pretty good including the Harper piece which was far more balanced than I expected, and I think much better than several previous issues.

The Walrus' extinction is far more likely based on esoteric snooty literary content, free online publication, or the middling tastes of Canadians rather than one poor article.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds