This article provides a rebuttal of Roy H. Grieve’s critique of Peach 2009, “Adam Smith and the Labor Theory of (Real) Value: A Reconsideration.” It is shown that Grieve cannot represent accurately the position he purports to criticize, that his criticisms are directed at phantom targets of his own creation, that his grasp of central concepts (including the labor theory of value) is flawed, and that he simply ignores material that does not suit his mordacious ends. Although Grieve’s stated purpose is to defend the scholarly status quo, it is argued that his misplaced efforts do nothing to salvage an interpretation that stands in need of fundamental revision, the authoritative voices invoked by Grieve in his support notwithstanding.

You do not currently have access to this content.