> Have you?
Yes.
> In any case, it's not clear why interpreting Adam Smith (1723-1790) is an appropriate criterion here.
Because it speaks to both their reading comprehension and grasp of economics.
>> Have you?
> Yes.
You didn't answer my crucial follow-up question: "How many, exactly?"
> Because it speaks to both their reading comprehension and grasp of economics.
Not really. There's actually been quite a bit of work on that subject since the 18th century, if you hadn't heard.
What makes that follow-up question crucial?
The claim was "I've had enough Jacobin readers misinterpret Adam Smith to me to form an informed opinion." So the question is, how many do you believe is enough to justify the claim that your opinion is informed? Otherwise it would appear to be an unjustified overgeneralization based on extremely limited anecdotes.
Your guess would be incorrect. One doesn't need to be a Jacobin reader to meet Jacobin readers.
Also you didn't explain why this question is crucial.
Obviously it's crucial, because keep avoiding it, refusing to answer, while defensively asking why it's crucial instead of simply answering. It's not like I'm asking for your social security number here.
I did actually explain why, though: "Otherwise it would appear to be an unjustified overgeneralization based on extremely limited anecdotes."
In any case, it's not clear why interpreting Adam Smith (1723-1790) is an appropriate criterion here. Of course, I don't grant without evidence that you possess a correction interpretation of Adam Smith. FWIW (not much) I read The Wealth of Nations many years ago, though I don't claim to be a Smith scholar, and I have no wish to debate the matter with you. I just find it strange that you feel the need to drag him into this discussion.