Keeping Whig History Honest

Whig History of economic writings, a la Samuelson [1987], needs suspicious monitoring like that in Cigdem Kurdos [1988]. I depose that there is merit in her observations. But being skeptical of an adversary procedure in research, rather than debating interpretations I shall here address the following questions. 1. Whatever the verisimilitude for Ricardo's works of the canonical classical model-in which accumulation of capital permits and induces labor supply growth such that, with the supply of land fixed, returns to labor and capital diminish to an equilibrium level at which stationary reproduction persists—in what degree does Samuelson [1978] misrepresent Smith's vision? 2. Does the Whig approach reveal and self-incriminate the modern economist, particularly those of the mainstream who veer toward the neoclassical right bank?