As Cannon suggests, to attempt to apportion the merit between different authors is like standing on some beach and discussing whether this or that particular wave had most to do with the rising tide. Nevertheless it is clear that the sources by which Smith had been influenced flowed directly into The Wealth of Nations.Schumpeter argues that no matter what he actually learned or failed to learn from predecessors, the fact is that the Wealth of Nations does not contain a single analytic idea, principle, or method that was entirely new in 1776.
 What he learned from Hutcheson about the love of liberty, he did not learn from him that self-interest works for the benefit of society.
Cannon acknowledges Mandeville, who first made Smith realize that it is not from the benevolence of the people that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
For Smith it was the ‘annual produce of land and labor of the society.’ While under the mercantilist view, large hoarding of gold and silver was considered as a good policy, Smith recognized that wealth does not reside in money because it is just a medium of exchange.
His analysis concluded that specialization and productivity creates bigger output, and the process of the division of labor decreases prizes and makes goods more affordable for even the poorest people.
Quesnay had been influencing while Smith was in Paris.
Rothschild agrees when she writes that both Hume and Smith had been considered in Scotland by French scepticism.Further, libertarian and early economic concepts such as freedom of internal trade or freedom of foreign had been part of the public discourse.Viner explains how Hutcheson had already skteched out the concept of an underlying natural order manifesting itself through the physical forces and individual psychology.What perhaps then made Smith’s thought original was not the fact that he brought all the ingredients to the table, but rather that he added the missing ingredient and was able to connect the dots.Today, Smith is known as the father of modern economics, and his reputation comes from his ability to explain how self-interest in a free market economy can lead to a greater economic good.it is something that is not dependent on other people’s ideas, inventive or novel. In order to determine what elements can be considered original in Adam Smith’s political economy, Smith’s sources of influence must be examined.In his Principia, Newton claimed that if he has been able to see further, it was only because he stood on the shoulders of giants.In that regard, we have to analyze the content of , from which Smith’s political economy is derived, accordingly and understand that there are two elements to Smith’s political economy.Smith had very different views on what constituted wealth.Conventional wisdom suggested that wealth lay in gold and silver.Rogger describes Smith as the true spectator of the human scene, involved in that scene, but always capable of detached analysis and appraisal of everything that came within his view. Another key to originality lies in Smith’s drive to change society by public consent.