The observation about the populist theme of "the many and the few,"
in contrast to class, is accurate. So much the worse for hackneyed
class analysis. ("Workers and peasants of the Bronx!")
The way the Pops chose to 'unrig' the market included a) nationalizing
the railroads; b) co-ops allowing farmers to band together in buying
supplies and selling their output; and c) a new monetary system to
replace the extant chaos of private banks. Laying this to Adam
Smith is quite a stretch, sort of like looking for crucifixion
symbolism in Hemingway. -- mbs
>
> the above makes sense to me: in the U.S., at least, the late 19th century
> Populist movement was one of the "little guys" against the power of the
> elites (Eastern bankers, etc.) The cry was that the Big Corporations were
> rigging the market against the "little guys." This suggests that
> the markets
> needed to be "unrigged" rather replaced by something different and better.
> That fits with the general Smithian viewpoint (though not necessarily with
> the _laissez-faire_ interpretation of his ideas).
