Jeremy Bentham and Adam Smith on the usury laws: a 'Smithian' reply to Bentham and a new problem

IF 0.6 3区经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS

European Journal of the History of Economic Thought Pub Date : 1999-12-01 DOI:10.1080/10427719900000042

S. Hollander

引用次数: 24

Abstract

Adam Smith justified the contemporary usury laws and was severely criticised by Bentham and most modern writers with the important exception of J.M. Keynes. We argue that pace Bentham, Smith did not intend to preclude loan financing of all 'risky' ventures and give a 'monopoly' to safe investments and did not neglect the potential emergence of black credit markets. Yet Smith ought to have modified his position independently of Bentham's criticism, considering a marked rise in the rate at which governments borrowed in the late 1770s.

查看原文本刊更多论文

边沁与亚当·斯密论高利贷法:对边沁的“斯密式”回答与一个新问题

亚当·斯密为当代的高利贷法律辩护，并受到边沁和大多数现代作家的严厉批评，但重要的例外是J.M.凯恩斯。我们认为，与边沁相比，斯密并没有打算排除所有“风险”企业的贷款融资，并给予安全投资“垄断”，也没有忽视黑色信贷市场的潜在出现。然而，考虑到18世纪70年代末政府借款率的显著上升，斯密本应独立于边沁的批评而修改自己的立场。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

European Journal of the History of Economic Thought Multiple-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

28.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought (EJHET), a peer-reviewed journal, has quickly established itself as a leading forum for lively discussion on a wide range of issues in the history of economic thought. With contributions from both established international scholars and younger academics, EJHET is entirely pluralist and non-partisan with regard to subjects and methodologies - it does not subscribe to any particular current of thought, nor relate to any one geographic zone. The Managing Editors and Editorial Board and Advisory Board members are drawn from throughout Europe and beyond, and are committed to encouraging scholars from around the world to contribute to international research and debate.