Talk:James Steuart (economist)

Untitled

Unclear text (translated?)

I have taken out the following lines The German economists examined Steuart's treatise, especially in relation to the theory of value and the subject of population. They pointed out that he dwelt on the special characters which distinguish the economies proper to different nations and different grades in social progress. Hegel read it at a formative time. It is not clear what it means and there is no source for the claim in the last sentence.

In the remaining text there is also a reference missing for the statement that Adam Smith thought that Steuart's "conversation was better than his book". I have included some biographical info from the New School HET website, and added sources.Robertsch55 (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that it is accurate to call Steuart a moderate mercantilist, this is opinion. His work more clearly documents the way in which the peasantry were forced by the Scottish elites from their agriculturally self-sufficent lifestyles to a situation of wage labor. Attaching Steuart to Mercantilism is further incorrect. Steuart's work reflects more of the means by which capitalism was forced on people rather than documenting mercantilismm. I will delete this from the article unless there is some discussion on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reb enfilade (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Reb enfilade,

Thank you for your concern about the article on Steuart. According to the most respected experts in the field (the ones I quote under secondary sources) he can be called a moderate mercantilist which is actually a much more balanced evaluation of his views than Adam Smith's. Your - supposedly Marxist - analysis will in my view clearly not qualify as NPOV. I think even Marx himself showed more sense of nuance on this issue in his Theories of Surplus Value. In plain English: if an economist proposes the kind of government intervention in international trade that Steuart advocates, he is - by common consensus of the leading writers in the field - qualified as a (moderate) mercantilist. There have been no differences of opinion or debates about this. The other important aspect of the issues you raise is that Steuart indeed provides a wealth of historical information to support his arguments, and many historians of economic thought assume that Smith appears to ignore Steuart in his Wealth of Nations precisely because Steuart's analysis provided a credible alternative to his own views. Most of the text was put up by another contributor and came from the Encyclopedia Brittanica. I would suggest we respect that source. (also copied to your own talk page)Robertsch55 (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Robertsch55,

Thanks for the quick response, your point is taken. There are however respected political economists that would point to his primary work as documentation of the means by which wage labor was forced on the Scotish people... Should this not be mentioned in the article?

Perhaps more light can be shed on the aspects of 'primitive accumulation', as the german school puts it, in relation to 'Principles of Political Oeconomy'. I am considering writing a small bit on primitive accumulation as it relates to the work of Steuart. Essentially this would be under the heading: "Modern Interpretations of Steuart" As I would like to link this article to the wikipedia article: "Primitive Accumulation of Capital". Steuart provides a great deal of information concerning social division of labour that is relevant to a critique of the founding of capitalism.

Sources that might help further clarify this position are that of "The Invention of Capitalism" by Michael Perelman and "The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View" by Ellen Wood. Perhaps you might suggest how you see these current views which harken back to Steuart being incorporated into this article if at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reb enfilade (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look at my source material and the original Principles text, and will then get back to you, OK?Robertsch55 (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes sounds good, let me know what you think.

Article should be titled James Steuart not James Denham-Steuart

James Denham-Steuart should be the secondary name under the main title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overagainst (talk • contribs)

ODNB leads with Steuart [later Steuart Denham], Sir James, of Coltness and Westshield; his son appears to have used Steuart in Scotland and Denham in England. If Steuart-Denham, with the hyphen, is wrong (and few sources seem to use it), we should not either. For a list of sources on him and his son, see here. I leave this for discussion; if I see none, I will move.

In the long run, it may be best to call him Steuart, as his collected works, and much of the literature, do - or to disambiguate with one of the baronetcies; he is one of five generations of his family called James, and three of them are notable enough for a ODNB article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Choess has sketched the subject's genealogy at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Stewart.2FSteuart_Baronets_of_Coltness_and_Kirkfield. If this is correct, and it seems well sourced, Sir James Denham Steuart, 3rd and 7th Baronet is an unfortunate choice of title; he was not 7th baronet until his cousin died in 1773; during those 7 years, he was already named Steuart Denham. Please discuss; we need a consistent plan, covering all the Steuarts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The struck claim is wrong; there is another, perhaps more serious, problem. There is a disagreement among the sources when, and for whom, the baronetcy he bore most of his life was created; he may be 3rd baronet, as ODNB says; or he may be second, as Complete Baronetage says. Under the circumstances, calling him 3rd Baronet seems in advisable. On the other hand, I see little evidence that his name was James Denham Stuart at any time; he was not descended from the Denhams, and would not ratiomnally expect their estates until be was almost sixty; when he did inherit them, he became Sir James Steuart Denham. A minor, but perplexing difficulty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference

Profile of Sir James Denham Steuart — wrong. 46.138.148.158 (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://cruel.org/econthought/profiles/steuart.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the portrait of Steuart, or his father?

It looks to me as if the portrait used here, and on various places around the web, is the same one used for Steuart's father, James Stewart (advocate), except in a lower-quality scan. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Sir_James_Denham_Steuart._1713-1780.gif. FNAS (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Steuart (economist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629230810/http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/het/ to http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/het/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Steuart (economist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080210101829/http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/steuart.htm to http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/steuart.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)