When Adam Smith discusses “corn” to what crop does he refer?

When Adam Smith discusses “corn” to what crop does he refer?

In "The Wealth Of Nations", Adam Smith discusses the price of corn in ancient times. Apparently, books such as "Chronicon Preciosum: or An Account of English Money, the Price of Corn and Other Commodities, for the Last 600 Years" (written in 1707) document the price of corn. This would seem to indicate that Europeans were eating corn since at least 1107.

However, I "learned" in school that it was Columbus who brought corn to Europe after 1492.

When Adam Smith discusses "corn", is he referring to some other vegetable food which differs from "corn on the cob"? Or, did the Europeans in fact have corn before the time of Columbus?

The word corn, Wiktionary tells us, can mean:

  1. (Britain) The main cereal plant grown for its grain in a given region, such as oats in parts of Scotland and Ireland, and wheat or barley in England and Wales.
  2. (US, Canada, Australia) Maize, a grain crop of the species Zea mays.
  3. A grain or seed, especially of a cereal crop.
  4. A small, hard particle.

The word comes through Proto-Germanic from a Proto-IndoEuropean root from which the Latin granum also is derived; the latter gave us the English grain (etymonline). (Maize comes through Spanish from the Taíno word for Zea mays.)

So when the British Colonies in America were settled, corn meant essentially "cereal grain". The settlers found the natives growing Zea mays and called it "Indian corn" (Dictionary of Americanisms). Since it became a major crop of the settlers too, and they already had names for their familiar corns (wheat, rye, oats), the name "Indian corn" was soon shortened in America to simply "corn".

Whether Columbus's voyages returned with maize seed is unclear, but it was soon introduced to the Old World, being one element of the Columbian Exchange, the great transfer of organisms and ideas between the hemispheres which followed the establishment of European travel across the Atlantic Ocean. Columbus was aware of the Taíno cultivation of Zea mays, as there is a description of it from his second voyage in 1494:

It is a grain of very high yield, of the size of the lupine, of the roundness of the chick-pea, and yields a meal ground to a very fine powder; it is ground as is wheat and yields a bread of very good taste. (Histories of Maize)

Adam Smith's reference to corn in ancient times was certainly a reference to cereal grains, perhaps specifically to wheat, but that is not clear.

In her book, Rome on the Euphrates, published in the 1960s, historian Freya Stark makes several references to corn in the Middle East and in southern Russia in the classical period of the late republic. However, she included no illustrations. I assumed she was referring to other grains, not the corn referred to usually in modern America, (and definitely not to anyone's sense of humor!)

Thomas Jefferson's published letters refer to corn and maize being grown simultaneously in France in the 1780's.

The explanations given are very good, however, there are history events, such as the Vikings who invaded England, also sailed to the northern regions of the American continent, and they could have taken the corn (Maize) to England.

Also there is a church in Scotland (Edinburg), built by the Saintclaires of Rosslyn, in the 1446, 46 years before the discovery of America. In this church there are build into its construction, curved figures of corn plants with corn cobs. So, were the English eating corn or maize, the american maize before 1492?

Dependable Performance

DEKALB corn products offer 100% exclusive genetic diversity, innovative breeding and strong agronomics to maximize performance and success.

Yield. Feed. Succeed.

DEKALB silage products feature outstanding digestibility, nutritional quality and high tonnage potential to help maximize your herd’s productivity and improve performance potential.

Seed with the Potential for Higher Performance

Count on DEKALB grain sorghum for excellent standability, exceptional threshability and advanced staygreen characteristics.

Quality Alfalfa Crop

The DEKALB Roundup Ready® Alfalfa system protects your crops through superior weed control, allowing for higher-quality alfalfa and maximum yield potential.

Superior Control for Maximum Yield Potential

The DEKALB spring canola portfolio offers a full suite of products to meet the needs of canola growers.


Chapman was born February 2, 1953, in Denver, Colorado, the child of Wesley Duane Chapman (1930–2000), a welder (during Dog's childhood) later turned bail bondsman (after Dog started) [5] with Aaron Bail Bonds, who served aboard the USS Irwin during the Korean War, and Barbara Darlene Chapman ( née Cowell 1934–1994), an Assemblies of God minister. [1] [6] [7] [8] [9] (more specifically, a Sunday school teacher) [5] He has three siblings: Jolene Kaye Martinez ( née Chapman 1955–2016), Michael Chapman, and Paula Hammond ( née Chapman). [8] He is of German and English descent on his father's side, and of English and Chiricahua descent on his mother's side. [10] [11]

At the age of 15, Chapman joined the Devils Diciples, an outlaw motorcycle club, and ran away from home. [9] [5] In 1976, Chapman was convicted of first degree murder, and sentenced to five years in a Texas prison. He had been waiting in a getaway car while his friend shot and killed Jerry Oliver, 69, [12] in a struggle during a deal to buy cannabis. [13]

Chapman served 18 months at the Texas State Penitentiary in Huntsville, Texas. While he was in prison, his first wife LaFonda divorced him and married his best friend. During his incarceration, he did field work and acted as the warden's barber. In a 2007 interview for Fox News, Chapman claimed that while serving his sentence, he tackled an inmate about to be shot for attempting to escape, and a congratulatory remark by a Corrections Officer inspired him to become a bounty hunter later. [14] Chapman was paroled in January 1979. [15]

As a result of his felony conviction, Chapman is not permitted to own any firearms, and has been refused entry to the United Kingdom. [13]

Capture of Andrew Luster Edit

On June 18, 2003, Chapman made international news by capturing Max Factor cosmetics heir, Andrew Luster, who had fled the United States in the middle of his trial on charges of drugging and raping a number of women. Luster had been convicted in absentia on 86 counts, including multiple rape charges connected to assaults in 1996, 1997, and 2000. [16] Chapman was assisted by his "hunt team," which consisted of his son, Leland, and an associate, Tim Chapman (the latter having no relation). The three bounty hunters captured Luster in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where he had been living under an assumed name. On their way to bring Luster to jail, they were pulled over by Mexican police, and all four of them were jailed. Once the authorities confirmed Luster's identity, he was sent to California to face his 125-year sentence.

Chapman and his team, still in the Mexican jail, were initially denied bail, but after his wife Beth alerted the media and aroused public opinion in the United States, they were granted bail. Once out of jail on bail, they followed their attorney's advice and fled the jurisdiction, thereby becoming international bail-jumpers. On September 14, 2006, days before the expiration of the statute of limitations, Chapman, along with his son Leland Chapman and associate Tim Chapman, were arrested by United States Marshals, and jailed in Honolulu on behalf of the Mexican government. [17] Mexican authorities had charged all three with "deprivation of liberty," involving the 2003 arrest of Andrew Luster, because bounty hunting is illegal in Mexico. Since they did not obtain permission to leave the country while out on bail in 2003, the Mexican Government declared the three Chapmans fugitives from justice and tried to get them extradited to Mexico for sentencing. After spending one night in the federal detention center in Honolulu, Chapman told reporters "The federal marshals treated us with great respect. But let me tell you, you never want to go to a federal prison, because it's terrible." [18]

The next day, September 15, 2006, Chapman appeared in a packed Honolulu courtroom with his ankles shackled. [17] Although the judge agreed that the men were not a significant flight risk, he ordered that each wear an electronic monitoring device around the ankle. [18] The three men were released on bail ($300,000 for Duane Chapman, $100,000 each for Leland Chapman and Tim Chapman). Chapman's lead attorney, Brook Hart, reportedly planned to argue that although the charge Chapman faced is a misdemeanor in Mexico, [ citation needed ] when translated into English, the charge of kidnapping became a felony under American law. Mexican authorities dismissed Hart's claim as the desperate efforts of an American lawyer trying to free his client. They insisted that Chapman had, in fact, been charged with a felony. An extradition hearing was set for November 16, 2006. [19]

Chapman has speculated that his arrest was due in part to a possible prisoner exchange agreement between the Mexican and American authorities. According to Chapman, the federal agents "sold him out", by trading him in for a convicted Mexican drug lord. [20] Duane, Leland, and Tim had their ankle bracelets removed so they could work. [21] On October 11, 2006, reports surfaced of an open letter dated September 26, 2006, sent on Chapman's behalf by 29 Republican Congressmen to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The letter stated the authors' opposition to Chapman's extradition and requested that Rice deny Mexico's request for same. [22] Subsequently, on October 20, 2006, lawyers for Chapman said that the Mexican federal court had granted them an order that halted the criminal case against the bounty hunter until further evidence and witness testimony were gathered. [23] A court hearing was held on December 23, 2006. The original hearing was postponed because a report from a lower court was not yet received. The court heard both sides of the story, and then decided to recess. Then court proceedings started on January 16, 2007 and the court had until Tuesday, February 6, 2007 but the deadline was extended.

On February 16, 2007, a Mexican federal court ruled that there was no reason not to try Chapman on the charge of deprivation of liberty in Mexico. [24] In response, on February 23, Hawaii State Representatives Gene Ward, Karen Awana, Rida Cabanilla, Lynn Finnegan, Barbara Marumoto, Colleen Meyer, Kymberly Pine, Joe Bertram, Ken Ito, Marylin Lee, and John Mizuno introduced House Concurrent Resolution 50, "Requesting the President of Mexico and the Second District Court of Guadalajara to drop extradition charges against TV Bounty Hunter, Duane 'Dog' Chapman". [25] The resolution was passed by the International Affairs committee on March 7. [26]

During this time, Chapman, along with his new attorney, William C. Bollard, appeared on numerous media shows. Some of these include: Larry King Live, Greta Van Susteren, Mark and Mercedez Morning Show on Mix 94.1 KMXB in Las Vegas, The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet on WFLD, Fox 6 News San Diego, The Glenn Beck Program, and THE 9 on Yahoo!. Honolulu news outlet KHNL reported on August 1, 2007 that the arrest warrant issued for Chapman and his associates might be invalidated, as a Mexican court had found that the statute of limitations regarding the arrest had expired. The 15-page legal order was released in Spanish, and was translated and verified for legal accuracy. [27] On September 29, 2006, Chapman received permission to have the electronic monitoring device removed temporarily so that he could travel to the East Coast for previously planned appearances. [28] On August 2, 2007, the First Criminal Court in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, dismissed all criminal charges pending against Duane, Leland, and Tim Chapman, on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired. The order effectively cancelled all pending charges. The prosecution appealed the ruling this is standard practice in Mexico, according to A&E. [29] On November 5, 2007, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren dismissed the extradition attempt, saying that even though the cases were appealed, the trio are no longer charged with any crimes.

Dog the Bounty Hunter Edit

Chapman, after decades of bounty hunting, was featured on Take This Job, a program about people with unusual occupations. This led him and the show's production company to do a spin-off about his work in capturing bail fugitives, in particular Chapman's efforts in hunting down Andrew Luster in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. After Luster's jailing, Chapman was interviewed for the August 28, 2003 episode of the truTV television series Dominick Dunne's Power, Privilege, and Justice. By now Chapman's profile had come to the attention of the American public. It was during this time A&E decided to create an ongoing reality series around his bounty hunting job. On August 30, 2004, the first series of Dog the Bounty Hunter made its television debut, running for eight seasons before being canceled in 2012. The theme song was performed by Ozzy Osbourne.

Dog and Beth: On the Hunt Edit

On September 25, 2012, CMT announced it had ordered a new reality series which would begin airing in April 2013. [30] [31] The new series, titled Dog and Beth: On the Hunt, featured Chapman, his wife Beth, and Chapman's son Leland visiting failing bail bond agencies across the country, giving them advice on how to turn their businesses around, and assisting in the capture of their most wanted fugitives. [32] [33] [34]

The show's pilot episode featured Chapman and his son Leland working together for the first time since Leland left the previous show in 2012. The show ran for three seasons, airing until its cancellation in 2016. [35]

Dog's Most Wanted Edit

In 2019 an additional spin-off featuring Dog and Beth called Dog's Most Wanted, airing for a single season. [36]

Author Edit

In 2007 Chapman released his autobiography, You Can Run But You Can't Hide (co-written with Laura Morton). The book debuted at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. [37]

His second book, Where Mercy Is Shown, Mercy Is Given was published in 2010, also co-authored with Morton. [38]

Appearances Edit

  • Chapman and Beth appeared in the Corner Gas episode "Coming Distractions", in which - during a daydream - they show up to arrest Brent.
  • Chapman appeared with his wife Beth on the Criss Angel Mindfreak one-hour special. Dog tied Criss Angel up to a chair and lowered him into a hot tub. After four minutes, Criss loosened the ties but could not fully free himself.
  • Chapman appeared as himself in an episode of George Lopez, wherein George goes to his mother's neighborhood to pick up her pet dog and meets "Dog" instead.
  • Chapman appeared as himself in the season two finale "The Trial" of the NBC show My Name Is Earl, capturing Joy Darville in Mexico.
  • Chapman and Beth attended Gene Simmons' wedding to Shannon Tweed on Gene Simmons Family Jewels. [episode needed]
  • Chapman and Beth made appearances as themselves on the Canadian television series Corner Gas in 2008. [39]
  • Duane, Beth, Leland, and Lyssa Chapman all appear in the pre-credits segment of the Hawaii Five-0 episode "Na Ki'i" with Duane Chapman interacting briefly with Steve McGarrett (Alex O'Loughlin). Duane makes additional cameos throughout Season 6, with a recurring role in Season 7.
  • Chapman has a cameo in the television film Sharknado: The 4th Awakens, as a chainsaw dealer.
  • Chapman appears in the HLN series Lies, Crimes & Video episode "Secrets in Room 120" where he is interviewed about Ralph Shortey and his 2017 arrest.

In early October 2007, Chapman gained negative public attention after a private phone conversation between him and his son, Tucker, was leaked to the media. The conversation was about the relationship his son was having with a black woman. During the recording, Chapman can be heard saying "I don't care if she's a Mexican, a whore or whatever. It's not because she's black, it's because we use the word nigger sometimes here. I'm not gonna take a chance ever in life of losing everything I've worked for for 30 years because some fucking nigger heard us say nigger and turned us in to the Enquirer magazine. Our career is over! I'm not taking that chance at all! Never in life! Never! Never! If Lyssa [Dog's daughter] was dating a nigger, we would all say 'fuck you!' And you know that. If Lyssa brought a black guy home ya da da. it's not that they're black, it's none of that. It's that we use the word nigger. We don't mean you fucking scum nigger without a soul. We don't mean that shit. But America would think we mean that. And we're not taking a chance on losing everything we got over a racial slur because our son goes with a girl like that. I can't do that Tucker. You can't expect Gary, Bonnie, Cecily, all them young kids to [garbled] because 'I'm in love for 7 months' - fuck that! So, I'll help you get another job but you can not work here unless you break up with her and she's out of your life. I can't handle that shit. I got 'em in the parking lot trying to record us. I got that girl saying she's gonna wear a recorder…". [40] Once the tape was made public, A&E announced it was suspending production of Chapman's TV series pending an investigation. [41] [42] On October 31, 2007, Chapman issued a public apology, [43] but on November 2, 2007, A&E announced it was nonetheless removing the show from their schedule "for the foreseeable future." [44]

On December 21, 2007, Roy Innis, the chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality and a member of the National Rifle Association's governing board, [45] [46] and one of the first to petition the A&E network to have the show taken off the air, met with Alicia Colon of the New York Sun and Chapman. Later Innis said, "After meeting with him and his wife, Beth, and hearing his side of the story, we realized that the controversy had unjustly spiraled out of control without context. Duane has taken ownership of the damage of his words and has taken on the responsibility of being a racial healer for our country. I have been with this man several times and had extensive dialogues with him. I consider him and his wife good friends. Duane is a changed man and has a higher purpose. Popular television is a wasteland of meaningless titillation and degradation. The Dog's potential to take his celebrity and turn it into something redeeming for our culture and society is immense. It is for these reasons that we want his television show back on the air." [47]

On February 19, 2008, A&E announced that Chapman's TV show would return to production. [48]

Marriages and children Edit

Chapman's first marriage was to La Fonda Sue Darnell ( née Honeycutt born 1953), by whom he has two children, Duane Lee Chapman, II (January 21, 1973) and Leland Blane Chapman (December 14, 1976). [49] [50] [51] [52] The two wed in Pampa, Texas, on April 1, 1972, and remained married until October 27, 1977 La Fonda filed for divorce from Chapman after he was convicted of first-degree murder, and was granted custody of Duane Lee and Leland. [53] [54] Chapman was granted custody of the boys after the two began to become involved in crime and they were placed in foster care. [55] Both sons would go onto work with Chapman at Da'Kine Bail Bonds in Honolulu, Hawaii, and appear on TV alongside their father. [56] [57] [58]

His second marriage was to Ann Tegnell, by whom he has three children, Zebadiah Chapman (January 1, 1980 – January 31, 1980), Wesley Chapman (November 14, 1980), and James Robert Chapman (March 2, 1982). The two wed on August 22, 1979, in Colorado, shortly after Chapman was paroled after having served two years of a five-year sentence at the Texas State Penitentiary for first degree murder, and divorced sometime after the birth of Wesley. [59] [60] The two reconciled briefly, resulting in the birth of their son James. [60] Ann was subsequently granted custody of both their children, and moved to Utah. Wesley was ultimately raised by his maternal grandmother, and both sons were kept from being able to communicate with Chapman the two of them reunited with Chapman as adults. [60]

His third marriage was to Lyssa Rae Brittain ( née Greene), an American businesswoman who is also famous as a housemaker, and is referred to as "Big Lyssa." [61] The marriage was reportedly performed by a Native American chief in the Colorado mountains in 1982, and ended on November 20, 1991. The two had met just days prior in a bar, while Lyssa was still married to her husband, an Assemblies of God minister, though the two had since separated due to his infidelity. [62] According to Chapman, he offered Lyssa $1,000 to have his child, to which she agreed. [62] They had three children together, Barbara Katie Chapman (June 8, 1982 – May 19, 2006), Tucker Dee Chapman (September 8, 1983), and Lyssa Rae Chapman (June 10, 1987). [62] The family lived in Denver, Colorado, in a home left to Chapman by his grandfather Mike, along with Duane Lee and Leland. [62] According to Chapman's daughter Lyssa, she and her siblings reportedly endured a hard childhood, with incidents of sexual abuse and substance abuse plaguing the family. [63] [64]

His fourth marriage was to Tawny Marie Chapman. The two met in 1988, after Chapman arrested her on a drug possession charge, and she subsequently became his secretary. [65] The two married in 1992, separated in 1994, and officially divorced in 2002. The two had no children together, though Chapman's children did refer to her as their mother during the two's relationship. In his autobiography, You Can Run But You Can't Hide, Chapman referred to the marriage as "a disaster from the start," alleging she was addicted to amphetamines. [66]

His fifth marriage was to Alice Elizabeth "Beth" Barmore ( née Smith), with whom he had an on-again-off-again relationship, until the two married on May 20, 2006, at a Hilton hotel in Waikoloa Village, Hawaii. They had two children together, Bonnie Joanne Chapman (December 16, 1998) and Garry Chapman (February 7, 2001), and Chapman adopted Beth's daughter by her ex-husband, Cecily Barmore-Chapman (June 19, 1993). Chapman was also able to help Beth locate and reconcile with her son, Dominic Davis (born 1985), who was born to her when she was a teenager.

Dog and Beth operated Da'Kine Bail Bonds together. Beth died on June 26, 2019, in Hawaii, as a result of throat cancer. She had been diagnosed with the disease in 2017, and underwent a 13-hour surgery to have a tumor removed. [67] The family appeared in an A&E series titled Dog and Beth: Fight of Their Lives, to chronicle the experience.

Chapman has one child out of wedlock, his eldest child Christopher Michael Hecht (July, 1969), who was born to his ex-girlfriend, Debbie White, while he was serving an 18-month prison sentence. Debbie kept her pregnancy from Chapman and committed suicide in 1978, leading the boy to be adopted by Keith and Gloria Hecht. Hecht has reportedly struggled with drug and alcohol addiction since at least 1991, and has a lengthy criminal history, including a history of hate crimes. [68] [69]

Can GMOs change our genes?

Concern has also surrounded the idea that genetically modified DNA would be unstable, causing damage (via unintentional mutations) not only to the crop, but also to whomever would consume it. Mutations in DNA are closely tied to cancer and other diseases, and thus mutagenic substances can have dire effects on human health. The creation of mutations, called mutagenesis, can be measured and compared to known mutation-causing agents and known safe compounds, allowing researchers to determine whether drugs, chemicals, and foods cause increased mutation rates. There are a variety of ways to measure mutagenicity, but the most traditional method is a process pioneered by Bruce Ames at the University of California in Berkeley. His method, now called the Ames test in his honor, is able to track increased rates of mutations in a living thing in response to some substance, like a chemical or food.

To directly test the ability of a GMO to cause mutations, a research group from the National Laboratory of Protein Engineering and Plant Genetic Engineering in Beijing, China applied the Ames test to GMO tomatoes and GMO corn [8]. GMO tomatoes and corn express the viral coat protein of cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). Expression of this coat protein confers resistance to CMV, which is the most broadly infectious virus of any known plant virus, thought to infect over 1,200 plant species from vegetable crops to ornamentals. The results of the Ames test demonstrated no relationship between GMO tomatoes or corn and mutations. They repeated their analysis using two additional methods for analyzing mutagenicity in mice and got the same result, allowing them to conclude that genetically modified DNA did not cause increased mutations in consumers. The modified DNA, like unmodified DNA, was not mutagenic.

Mutagenicity aside, there are also concerns surrounding the ability of the modified DNA to transfer to the DNA of whomever eats it or have other toxic side effects. Depending on the degree of processing of their foods, a given person will ingest between 0.1 and 1 g of DNA each day [9] as such, DNA itself is regarded as safe by the FDA [10]. To determine if the DNA from GMO crops is as safe to consume as the DNA from traditional food sources, the International Life Sciences Institute reviewed the chemical characteristics, susceptibility to degradation, metabolic fate and allergenicity of GMO-DNA and found that, in all cases, GMO-DNA was completely indistinguishable from traditional DNA, and thus is no more likely to transfer to or be toxic to a human [9]. Consistent with this, the researchers working on the GMO potato attempted to isolate the bar gene from their GMO eating rats. Despite 5 generations of exposure to and ingestion of the GMO, the researchers were unable to detect the gene in the rats’ DNA [5].

11.4 The ‘magic of the market’: Prices are messages plus motivation

The key to how this process works can be expressed in a single sentence. When markets work well, prices send messages about the real scarcity of goods and services. The messages provide information that motivates people to take account of what is scarce and what is abundant, and as a result to produce, consume, invest, and innovate in ways that make the best use of an economy’s productive potential.

Prices coordinate specialization among complete strangers

If drought in the American Great Plains means that there is less wheat on the world market, the resulting increase in the price of bread sends a message to the shopper: ‘Consider putting potatoes or rice on the table tonight instead of bread.’ The shopper may know nothing about weather conditions in America and need not be the slightest bit concerned about consuming less of a good that has become scarcer. To respond to the message of the higher price in a way that makes the best use of a society’s available resources, the shopper needs to be concerned about just one thing: saving money. The shopper not only gets the message, but has a good reason to act on it.

It is this—the fact that prices combine information and a reason to act on the information—that allows the market system (many markets interlinked) to coordinate the division of labour through the exchange of goods among entire strangers, without centralized direction. Friedrich Hayek, who was part economist and part philosopher, suggested we think of the market as a giant information-processing machine that produces prices the prices provide information that guides the economy, usually in desirable directions. The remarkable thing about this massive computational device is that it’s not really a machine at all. Nobody designed it, and nobody is at the controls. When it works well, we use phrases like ‘the magic’ of the market.

Are the prices sending the right messages?

But for this to be the case, the messages that prices send must convey the right information—how scarce a good really is. Think about what this means—the scarcity of a good is measured by its social marginal cost, that is, the total cost of having one more unit of it, including not only the cost of those producing and distributing it, but also the external effects imposed on others (for example, environmental damages).

You have seen many cases in the previous units in which the price of a good is not equal to its social marginal cost. The price of bananas in Martinique, for example, did not include the loss of life and livelihood inflicted on the downstream fishing community by the pesticides used on the plantations.

The price may fail to reflect the social marginal cost due to either:

  • A lack of competition: Price is greater than the private marginal cost to the producer.
  • External effects that are costs: For example, the negative environmental effects just mentioned.
  • External effects that are benefits: For example, the positive external effect for others if your scientific research created a valuable piece of knowledge that was a public good.

When prices send the wrong messages, we ask whether some modification of how markets work could be introduced by public policies to improve economic outcomes, for example, taxing production processes that emit greenhouse gases or subsidizing basic research.

We now illustrate how prices can send the right message, and sometimes not, by two real world cases.

Great economists Friedrich Hayek

The Great Depression of the 1930s ravaged the capitalist economies of Europe and North America, throwing a quarter of the workforce out of work in the US. During the same period, the centrally planned economy of the Soviet Union continued to grow rapidly under a succession of five-year plans. Even the arch-opponent of socialism, Joseph Schumpeter, had conceded: ‘Can socialism work? Of course it can. … There is nothing wrong with the pure logic of socialism.’ 2

Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992) disagreed. Born in Vienna, he was an Austrian (later British) economist and philosopher who believed that the government should play a minimal role in the running of society. He was against any efforts to redistribute income in the name of social justice. He was also an opponent of the policies advocated by John Maynard Keynes, designed to moderate the instability of the economy and the insecurity of employment.

Hayek’s book, The Road to Serfdom, was written against the backdrop of the Second World War, when economic planning was being used both by German and Japanese fascist governments, by the Soviet communist authorities, and by the British and American governments. He argued that well-intentioned planning would inevitably lead to a totalitarian outcome. 3

His key idea about economics—that prices are messages—revolutionized how economists think about markets. Messages convey valuable information about how scarce a good is, information that is available only if prices are free to be determined by supply and demand, rather than by the decisions of planners. Hayek even wrote a comic book, which was distributed by General Motors, to explain how this mechanism was superior to planning.

But Hayek did not think much of the theory of competitive equilibrium, in which all buyers and sellers are price-takers. ‘The modern theory of competitive equilibrium,’ he wrote, ‘assumes the situation to exist which a true explanation ought to account for as the effect of the competitive process.’ 4

In Hayek’s view, assuming a state of equilibrium (as Walras, one of the founders of the neoclassical school of economics, had done in developing general equilibrium theory) prevents us from analysing competition seriously. He defined competition as ‘the action of endeavouring to gain what another endeavours to gain at the same time.’ Hayek explained:

Now, how many of the devices adopted in ordinary life to that end would still be open to a seller in a market in which so-called ‘perfect competition’ prevails? I believe that the answer is exactly none. Advertising, undercutting, and improving (‘differentiating’) the goods or services produced are all excluded by definition—’perfect’ competition means indeed the absence of all competitive activities. 5

The advantage of capitalism, to Hayek, is that it provides the right information to the right people. In 1945, he wrote:

Which of these systems [central planning or competition] is likely to be more efficient depends mainly on the question under which of them we can expect [to make fuller use] of the existing knowledge. This, in turn, depends on whether we are more likely to succeed in putting at the disposal of a single central authority all the knowledge which ought to be used but which is initially dispersed among many different individuals, or in conveying to the individuals such additional knowledge as they need in order to enable them to dovetail their plans with those of others. 6

A Friedman doctrine‐- The Social Responsibility Of Business Is to Increase Its Profits

WHEN I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the “social responsibilities of business in a free‐enterprise system,” I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at, the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned “merely” with profit but also with promoting desirable “social” ends that business has a “social conscience” and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are—or would be if they or any one else took them seriously— preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.

The discussions of the “social responsibilities of business” are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean to say that “business” has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but “business” as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense. The first step toward clarity in examining the doctrine of the social responsibility of business is to ask precisely what it implies for whom.

Presumably, the individuals who are to be responsible are businessmen, which means individual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the discussion of social responsibility is directed at corporations, so in what follows I shall mostly neglect the individual proprietor and speak of corporate executives.

IN a free‐enterprise, private‐property system, a corporate executive is an employe of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose—for example, a hospital or school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objective but the rendering of certain services.

In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish the eleemosynary institution, and his primary responsibility is to them.

Needless to say, this does not mean that it is easy to judge how well he is performing his task. But at least the criterion of performance is straightforward, and the persons among whom a voluntary contractual arrangement exists are clearly defined.

Of course, the corporate executive is also a person in his own right. As a person, he may have many other responsibilities that he recognizes or assumes voluntarily—to his family, his conscience, his feelings of charity, his church, his clubs, his city, his country. He may feel impelled by these responsibilities to devote part of his income to causes he regards as worthy, to refuse to work for particular corporations, even to leave his job, for example, to join his country's armed forces. If we wish, we may refer to some of these responsibilities as “social responsibilities.” But in these respects he is acting as a principal, not an agent he is spending his own money or time or energy, not the money of his employers or the time or energy he has contracted to devote to their purposes. If these are “social responsibilities,” they are the social responsibilities of individuals, not of business.

What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a “social responsibility” in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For example, that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a price increase would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expenditures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the corporation or that is required by law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the en vironment. Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire “hard core” unemployed instead of better qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty.

In each of these cases, the corporate executive would be spending someone else's money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his “social responsibility” reduce returns to stock holders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers’ money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employes, he is spending their money.

The stockholders or the customers or the employes could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so. The executive is exercising a distinct “social responsibility,” rather than serving as an agent of the stockholders or the customers or the employes, only if he spends the money in a different way than they would have spent it.

But if he does this, he is in effect imposing taxes, on the one hand, and deciding how the tax proceeds shall be spent, on the other.

This process raises political questions on two levels: principle and consequences. On the level of political principle, the imposition of taxes and the expenditure of tax proceeds are governmental functions. We have established elaborate constitutional, parliamentary and judicial provisions to control these functions, to assure that taxes are imposed so far as possible in accordance with the preferences and desires of the public— after all, “taxation without representation” was one of the battle cries of the American Revolution. We have a system of checks and balances to separate the legislative function of imposing taxes and enacting expenditures from the executive function of collecting taxes and administering expenditure programs and from the judicial function of mediating disputes and interpreting the law.

Here the businessman—self‐selected or appointed directly or indirectly by stockholders—is to be simultaneously legislator, executive and jurist. He is to decide whom to tax by how much and for what purpose, and he is to spend the proceeds—all this guided only by general exhortations from on high to restrain inflation, improve the environment, fight poverty and so on and on.

The whole justification for permitting the corporate executive to be selected by the stockholders is that the executive is an agent serving the interests of his principal. This justification disappears when the corporate executive imposes taxes and spends the proceeds for “social” purposes. He becomes in effect a public employe, a civil servant, even though he remains in name an employe of private enterprise. On grounds of political principle, it is intolerable that such civil servants—insofar as their actions in the name of social responsibility are real and not just window‐dressing—should be selected as they are now. If they are to be civil servants, then they must be selected through a political process. If they are to impose taxes and make expenditures to foster “social” objectives, then political machinery must be set up to guide the assessment of taxes and to determine through a political process the objectives to be served.

This is the basic reason why the doctrine of “social responsibility” involves the acceptance of the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market mechanisms, are the appropriate way to determine the allocation of scarce resources to alternative uses.

ON the grounds of consequences, can the corporate executive in fact discharge his alleged “social responsibilities"? On the one hand, suppose he could get away with spending the stockholders’ or customers’ or employes’ money. How is he to know how to spend it? He is told that he must contribute to fighting inflation. How is he to know what action of his will contribute to that end? He is presumably an expert in running his company—in producing a product or selling it or financing it. But nothing about his selection makes him an expert on inflation. Will his holding down the price of his product reduce inflationary pressure? Or, by leaving more spending power in the hands of his customers, simply divert it elsewhere? Or, by forcing him to produce less because of the lower price, will it simply contribute to shortages? Even if he could answer these questions, how much cost is he justified in imposing on his stockholders, customers and employes for this social purpose? What is his appropriate share and what is the appropriate share of others?

And, whether he wants to or not, can he get away with spending his stockholders, customers’ or employes’ money? Will not the stockholders fire him? (Either the present ones or those who take over when his actions in the name of social responsibility have reduced the corporation's profits and the price of its stock.) His customers and his employes can desert him for other producers and employers less scrupulous in exercising their social responsibilities.

This facet of “social responsibility” doctrine is brought into sharp relief when the doctrine is used to justify wage restraint by trade unions. The conflict of interest is naked and clear when union officals are asked to subordinate the interest of their members to some more general social purpose. If the union officials try to enforce wage restraint, the consequence is likely to be wildcat strikes, rank‐and‐file revolts and the emergence of strong competitors for their jobs. We thus have the ironic phenomenon that union leaders—at least in the U.S. —have objected to Government interference with the market far more consistently and courageously than have business leaders.

The difficulty of exercising “social responsibility” illustrates, of course, the great virtue of private competitive enterprise — it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to “exploit” other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes. They can do good—but only at their own expense.

Many a reader who has followed the argument this far may be tempted to remonstrate that it is all well and good to speak of government's having the responsibility to impose taxes and determine expenditures for such “social” purposes as controlling pollution or training the hard‐core unemployed, but that the problems are too urgent to wait on the slow course of political processes, that the exercise of social responsibility by businessmen is a quicker and surer way to solve pressing current problems.

Aside from the question of fact—I share Adam Smith's skepticism about the benefits that can be expected from “those who affected to trade for the public good”—this argument must be rejected on grounds of principle. What it amounts to is an assertion that those who favor the taxes and expenditures in question have failed to persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to be of like mind and that they are seeking to attain by undemocratic procedures what they cannot attain by democratic procedures. In a free society, it is hard for “good” people to do “good,” but that is a small price to pay for making it hard for “evil” people to do “evil,” especially since one man's good is anther's evil.

I HAVE, for simplicity, concentrated on the special case of the corporate executive, except only for the brief digression on trade unions. But precisely the same argument applies to the newer phenomenon of calling upon stockholders to require corporations to exercise social responsibility (the recent G.M. crusade, for example). In most of these cases, what is in effect involved is some stockholders trying to get other stockholders (or customers or employes) to contribute against their will to “social” causes favored by the activists. Insofar as they succeed, they are again imposing taxes and spending the proceeds.

The situation of the individual proprietor is somewhat different. If he acts to reduce the returns of his enterprise in order to exercise his “social responsibility,” he is spending his own money, not someone else's. If he wishes to spend his money on such purposes, that is his right, and I cannot see that there is any objection to his doing so. In the process, he, too, may impose costs on employes and customers. However, because he is far less likely than a large corporation or union to have monopolistic power, any such side effects will tend to be minor.

Of course, in practice the doctrine of social responsibility is frequently a cloak for actions that are justified on other grounds rather than a reason for those actions.

To illustrate, it may well be in the long‐run interest of a corporation that is a major employer in a small community to devote resources to providing amenities to that community or to improving its government. That may make it easier to at tract desirable employes, it may reduce the wage bill or lessen losses from pilferage and sabotage or have other worthwhile effects. Or it may be that, given the laws about the deductibility of corporate charitable contributions, the stockholders can contribute more to charities they favor by having the corporation make the gift than by doing it them selves, since they can in that way contribute an amount that would otherwise have been paid as corporate taxes.

In each of these—and many similar—cases, there is a strong temptation to rationalize these actions as an exercise of “social responsibility.” In the present climate of opinion, with its widespread aversion to “capitalism,” “profits,” the “soulless corporation” and so on, this is one way for a corporation to generate goodwill as a by‐product of expenditures that are entirely justified in its own self‐interest.

It would be inconsistent of me to call on corporate executives to refrain from this hypocritical window dressing because it harms the foundations of a free society. That would be to call on them to exercise “social responsibility”! If our institutions, and the attitudes of the public make it in their self‐interest to cloak their actions in this way, cannot summon much indignation to denounce them. At the same time, can express admiration for those in dividual proprietors or owners of closely held corporations or stock holders of more broadly held corporations who disdain such tactics as approaching fraud.

WHETHER blameworthy or not, the use of the cloak of social responsibility, and the nonsense spoken in its name by influential and prestigious businessmen, does clearly harm the foundations of a free society. I have been impressed time and again by the schizophrenic character of many businessmen. They are capable of being extremely far‐sighted and clear‐headed in matters that are internal to their businesses. They are incredibly short sighted and muddle‐headed in mat ters that are outside their businesses but affect the possible survival of business in general. This short sightedness is strikingly exemplified in the calls from many businessmen for wage and price guidelines or controls or incomes policies. There is nothing that could do more in a brief period to destroy a market system and replace it by a centrally controlled system than effective governmental control of prices and wages.

The short‐sightedness is also exemplified in speeches by business men on social responsibility. This may gain them kudos in the short run. But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the ptirsuit of profits is wicked and im moral and must be curbed and controlled by external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces that curb the market will not be the social consciences, however highly developed, of the pontificating executives it will be the iron fist of Government bureaucrats. Here, as with price and wage controls, business men seem to me to reveal a suicidal impulse.

The political principle that under lies the market mechanism is unanimity. In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not participate. There are no “social” values, no “social” responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form.

The political principle that under lies the political mechanism is conformity. The individual must serve more general social interest— whether that be determined by church or a dictator or a majority. The individual may have a vote and a say in what is to be done, but if he is overruled, he must conform. It is appropriate for some to require others to contribute to a general social purpose whether they wish to or not.

Unfortunately, unanimity is not always feasible. There are some respects in which conformity appears unavoidable, so I do not see how one can avoid the use of the political Mechanism altogether.

But the doctrine of “social responsibility” taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collectivist doctrine. It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means. That is why, in my book “Capitalism and Freedom,” I have called it a “fundamentally subversive doctrine” in a free society, and have said that in such a society, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception fraud.”

5. The Naturalism Debate

Evolutionists were successful in court. Nevertheless, Laudan and fellow thinkers inspired the Creationists to new efforts, and since the Arkansas court case, the philosophical dimension to the evolution/Creationism controversy has been much increased. In particular, philosophical arguments are central to the thinking of the leader of today&rsquos creationists, Berkeley law professor, Phillip Johnson, whose reputation was made with the anti-evolutionary tract Darwin on Trial (1991). (Johnson&rsquos influence and importance is recognized by all and he has become leader emeritus. As we shall see, the task of leadership then got passed to younger people, especially the biochemist Michael Behe and the philosopher-mathematician William Dembski.) In respects, Johnson just repeated the arguments of the Creation Scientists (those given in an earlier section) &ndash gaps in the fossil record and so forth &mdash but at the same time he stressed that the Creation/evolution debate is not just one of science versus religion or good science versus bad science, but rather of conflicting philosophical positions. The implication was that one philosophy is much like another, or rather the implication was that one person&rsquos philosophy is another person&rsquos poison and that it is all a matter of personal opinion. Behind this one sees the lawyer&rsquos mind at work that, if it is all a matter of philosophy, then there is nothing in the United States Constitution which bars the teaching of Creationism in schools. (For better or for worse, one sees the heavy hand of Thomas Kuhn here, and his claim in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that the change from one paradigm to another is akin to a political revolution, not ultimately fueled by logic but more by extra-scientific factors, like emotions and simple preferences. In the Arkansas trial, Kuhn was as oft mentioned by the prosecutors as was Popper.)

Crucial to Johnson&rsquos position are a number of fine distinctions. He distinguishes between what he calls &ldquomethodological naturalism&rdquo and &ldquometaphysical naturalism&rdquo. The former is the scientific stance of trying to explain by laws and by refusing to introduce miracles. A methodological naturalist would insist on explaining all phenomena, however strange, in natural terms. Elijah setting fire to the water-drenched sacrifice, for instance, would be explained in terms of lightning striking or some such thing. The latter is the philosophical stance that insists that there is nothing beyond the natural &ndash no God, no supernatural, no nothing. &lsquoNaturalism is a metaphysical doctrine, which means simply that it states a particular view of what is ultimately real and unreal. According to naturalism, what is ultimately real is nature, which consists of the fundamental particles that make up what we call matter and energy, together with the natural laws that govern how those particles behave. Nature itself is ultimately all there is, at least as far as we are concerned&rsquo (Johnson 1995, 37&ndash38).

Then there is someone that Johnson calls a &lsquotheistic realist.&rsquo This is someone who believes in a God, and that this God can and does intervene in the natural world. &lsquoGod always has the option of working through regular secondary mechanisms, and we observe such mechanisms frequently. On the other hand, many important questions &ndash including the origin of genetic information and human consciousness &ndash may not be explicable in terms of unintelligent causes, just as a computer or a book cannot be explained that way&rsquo (p. 209). Johnson thinks of himself as a theistic realist, and hence as such in opposition to metaphysical realism. Methodological realism, which he links with evolutionism, would seem to be distinct from metaphysical realism, but it is Johnson&rsquos claim that the former slides into the latter. Hence, the evolutionist is the methodological realist, is the metaphysical realist, is the opponent of the theistic realist &ndash and as far as Johnson is concerned, the genuine theistic realist is one who takes a pretty literalistic reading of the Bible. So ultimately, it is all less a matter of science and more a matter of attitudes and philosophy. Evolution and Creationism are different world pictures, and it is conceptually, socially, pedagogically, and with good luck in the future legally wrong to treat them differently. More than this, it is incorporated into Johnson&rsquos argument that Creationism (a.k.a. Theistic Realism) is the only genuine form of Christianity.

But does any of this really follow? The evolutionist would claim not. The key notion in Johnson&rsquos attack is clearly methodological naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism, having been defined as something which precludes theism, has been set up as a philosophy with a religion-like status. It necessarily perpetuates the conflict between religion and science. But as Johnson himself notes, many people think that they can be methodological naturalists and theists. Methodological naturalism is not a religion equivalent. Is this possible, at least in a consistent way with intellectual integrity? It is Johnson&rsquos claim that it is not, for he wants the religion/science war to be absolute with no captives or compromises.


works on the methodology of economics

Friedman, Milton (1953) 1959 Essays in Positive Economics. Univ. of Chicago Press. → See especially Chapter 1.

Keynes, John N. (1891) 1955 The Scope and Method of Political Economy. 4th ed. New York: Kelley.

Knight, Frank H. (1933) 1951 The Economic Organization. New York: Kelley. → A paperback edition was published in 1966 by Harper.

Koopmans, Tjalling 1957 Three Essays on the State of Economic Science. New York: McGraw-Hill. → Makes considerable use of mathematics.

Machlup, Fritz 1963 Essays on Economic Semantics. Edited by Merton H. Miller. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Robbins, Lionel (1932) 1937 An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. 2d ed., rev. & enl. London: Macmillan.

general textbooks and journal references

American Economic Association 1961–1965 Index of Economic Journals. 6 vols. Homewood, III.: Irwin.

Bach, George L. (1954) 1966 Economics: An Introduction to Analysis and Policy. 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Lipsey, Richard G. and Steiner, Peter O. 1966 Economics. New York: Harper.

Samuelson, Paul A. (1948) 1964 Economics: An Introductory Analysis. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stigler, George J. (1942) 1960 The Theory of Price. Rev. ed. New York: Macmillan. → First published as The Theory of Competitive Price.

Stonier, Alfred W. and Hague, Douglas C. (1953) 1964 A Textbook of Economic Theory. 3d ed. New York: Wiley.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

"Economics ." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. . Encyclopedia.com. 17 Jun. 2021 < https://www.encyclopedia.com > .

"Economics ." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. . Retrieved June 17, 2021 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/economics

Citation styles

Encyclopedia.com gives you the ability to cite reference entries and articles according to common styles from the Modern Language Association (MLA), The Chicago Manual of Style, and the American Psychological Association (APA).

Within the “Cite this article” tool, pick a style to see how all available information looks when formatted according to that style. Then, copy and paste the text into your bibliography or works cited list.

Because each style has its own formatting nuances that evolve over time and not all information is available for every reference entry or article, Encyclopedia.com cannot guarantee each citation it generates. Therefore, it’s best to use Encyclopedia.com citations as a starting point before checking the style against your school or publication’s requirements and the most-recent information available at these sites:

Modern Language Association

The Chicago Manual of Style

American Psychological Association

  • Most online reference entries and articles do not have page numbers. Therefore, that information is unavailable for most Encyclopedia.com content. However, the date of retrieval is often important. Refer to each style’s convention regarding the best way to format page numbers and retrieval dates.
  • In addition to the MLA, Chicago, and APA styles, your school, university, publication, or institution may have its own requirements for citations. Therefore, be sure to refer to those guidelines when editing your bibliography or works cited list.

William Bennett

Last but not least -- Wellington NZ artist William Bennett, who did plenty of Red Mars designs a few years ago. And I do mean plenty! This might make this page heavier, but I wanted to display all 33 images here! There's a great level of detail -- you can display each image individually to read some comments. In some cases he has taken inspiration from the books and added some of his own ideas and concepts (such as logos of real-world companies).

The First Hundred training base in Antarctica:

Assembly of the Ares in Earth orbit:

First colonizers' habitats:

Trucks and other vehicles:

Space elevator and Clarke base:

Martian consumer products (Philip K Dick would like this):

That's all for now! Suffice to say there's plenty of interest for a visual interpretation of these novels. One can imagine the above being artwork commissioned to be the basis for a feature film or television series adaptation of the novels. Personally, I like the design aspect but I wonder whether an adaptation can make the themes of the novels justice.

We will now switch Earthside to cover the imminent release of KSR's new novel, The Ministry for the Future!

The fly and the cookie: alignment and unhingement in 21st-century capitalism

This SASE Presidential address given at UC Berkeley in 2016 discusses the entanglement between morality and capitalism. Moral sentiments—and especially what Adam Smith called the sense of propriety, the sense of merit and the sense of justice—play a productive role in organizing the extraction of economic value. Conversely, relative valuations in the economy (prices, for instance) can be thought of as moral engines that reward or sanction certain behaviors, and are presumed to index underlying moral differences. Economic value is produced both when individuals are morally aligned with the rational goals of capitalism, and when they perform unhinged deviations from the moral standard. I show how modern digital capitalism organizes profit extraction through these twin processes of alignment and unhingement, building new economic moralities in the process—moral sentiments that are the result of people’s interactions with opaque but powerful forms of behavioral fine-tuning, surveillance and manipulation.