A standard reading in the history of economic thought sets the classical stream of economists drawing upon the influence of Adam Smith (Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, etc.) in opposition to a “black box” of social thinkers (Louis Blanc, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, Jean de Sismondi, Robert Owen). This article, however, argues that, in the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the Saint-Simonians and the liberal economist Jean-Baptiste Say can be seen to adopt convergent views during the famous controversy about commercial gluts.First, we show that the Saint-Simonians and Say both see undersupply and lack of industry as causes of gluts. Next, we assert that their intellectual affinities are also visible in their belief that increasing production remains an appropriate solution for gluts. Finally, this convergence is explained by their common belief in industrialism: Saint-Simonianism is embedded in a French industrialist tradition for which Say can be taken as representative. We argue that their common belief in industry explains their convergence.

中文翻译：

---

商业过剩，或当圣西门人采纳让·巴蒂斯特·萨伊的观点时

经济思想史的标准解读设置了利用亚当·斯密（让-巴蒂斯特·萨伊、大卫·李嘉图等）影响的古典经济学家流与社会思想家的“黑匣子”（路易·布兰克、傅立叶主义） ，圣西蒙尼主义，让·德·西斯蒙第，罗伯特·欧文）。然而，本文认为，在 19 世纪上半叶，可以看出圣西蒙主义者和自由经济学家让-巴蒂斯特·萨伊在著名的商业过剩争论中采取了趋同的观点。首先，我们表明Saint-Simonians 和 Say 都认为供应不足和缺乏工业是供过于求的原因。接下来，我们断言，他们的智力亲和力也体现在他们相信增加产量仍然是解决过剩问题的适当解决方案中。最后，这种趋同可以通过他们对工业主义的共同信仰来解释：圣西蒙尼主义植根于法国工业主义传统中，萨伊可以作为其代表。我们认为，他们对行业的共同信念解释了他们的融合。