On the 250th anniversary of The Wealth of Nations, the Scottish philospher is still invoked by the right. Yet he worried about inequality, monopoly and the power of wealth

This week 250 years ago, Adam Smith published An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations – and invented economics. The anniversary has been marked by opinion columns, new books and academic conferences. How different it was 50 years ago. The 1976 bicentenary produced the definitive scholarly edition and helped cast Smith as the father of free-market economics. This was an easy sell during the 1970s slow collapse of the postwar economic order. Smith was useful as a symbolic figure for the revival of free-market ideas. Yet the truth is more complicated.

Milton Friedman, a Nobel laureate, recruited Smith as the patron saint of neoliberal economics in his 1980 book and television series Free to Choose – a manifesto that anticipated Reaganism in the US. He reduced Smith to two claims: that a voluntary exchange benefits both parties and that self-interest is led by an “invisible hand” that unintentionally promotes the public interest. In short: greed is good. In fact, Smith used the phrase “invisible hand” only once in The Wealth of Nations, to describe whether merchants invest their capital at home or abroad – and not, as Friedman claimed, as a general theory of markets.

The philosopher offers a measured and reasonable argument against assisted dying

In this admirably clear and cogent book, the philosopher Kathleen Stock sets out the case against state-sanctioned assisted dying. Her immediate objection is to the end of life bill currently before the House of Lords, but her opposition extends to the principle in general. This is a polemic, but a polite one. Stock says she hopes that by the end of it we will share her objection to the ‘‘institutionalisation of death”.

It is not a popular place to start. Polls over the past few years consistently show that around three-quarters of Britons are in favour of assisted dying for terminally ill people. But Stock has never been afraid of swimming upstream. In 2021, she resigned from the University of Sussex following protests by some staff and students over her views, set out in the book Material Girls, that sex is binary and immutable and that this, rather than gender identity, should be the basis of laws to protect women.