Question

Murray Rothbard levels the criticism that the Wealth of Nations, in fact, eclipsed public knowledge of all economists -- better ones, he says -- before Smith.

Which of the following statements is not in contradictions with the opinions of Murray Rothbard as expressed in the passage?

1) Smith was possibly the third best economist of all time
2) The Wealth of Nations should not have been as influential as it was
3) Adam Smith was not particularly influential

Answer 1

The statement aligning with Murray Rothbard's view is that 'The Wealth of Nations' should not have been as influential as it was, as Rothbard believed Smith's work eclipsed that of other, possibly superior, economists of the time. The correct answer is 1) Smith was possibly the third best economist of all time.

Step-by-step explanation:

According to Murray Rothbard, it seems he believed that other economists prior to Adam Smith were unjustly eclipsed by the popularity of Smith's work, specifically The Wealth of Nations.

Evaluating the given statements with Rothbard's perspective in mind, the statement that would not be in contradiction with Rothbard's opinions would be: The Wealth of Nations should not have been as influential as it was.

This statement aligns with Rothbard's critique that Smith's prominence overshadowed potentially superior contributions from earlier economists.

The other statements implying that Smith was possibly the third best economist or not particularly influential would indeed contradict Rothbard's view. Rothbard's point isn't that Smith was not influential - his criticism is that Smith's influence was disproportionate compared to other economists, not non-existent.