{"title":"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","authors":"S. Hollander","doi":"10.1080/10427719900000042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":51791,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"6 1","pages":"523-551"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"1999-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10427719900000042","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Jeremy Bentham and Adam Smith on the usury laws: a 'Smithian' reply to Bentham and a new problem\",\"authors\":\"S. Hollander\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10427719900000042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51791,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of the History of Economic Thought\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"523-551\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10427719900000042\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of the History of Economic Thought\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10427719900000042\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of the History of Economic Thought","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10427719900000042","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Jeremy Bentham and Adam Smith on the usury laws: a 'Smithian' reply to Bentham and a new problem
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.
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.