Market Prices Are Not Invisible

Alan Wheatley, Global Economics Correspondent writes in News Daily HERE

“Population boom heralds big global economic shifts”

“With the global population headed for the 9 billion mark by 2050, economists are pinning their faith on continued technological innovation and the invisible hand of market prices to lead to a more efficient, sustainable use of finite natural resources instead of a deadly fight to the end for the last barrel of oil and drop of water.”

Comment
I hope economists are NOT “pinning their faith on …the invisible hand of market prices”.

One thing for sure on the controversial question of the “the invisible hand’, not such things as “invisible market prices” exists or can exist.

Visibility of market prices is assured. No price system could work if prices were “invisible”.

If Alan Wheatley disagrees, please would he explain how an invisible price system conveys the necessary information for a market to work!

Their necessary visibility characterizes a market from a non-market, and that is a global certainty.

"Absent Clockmaker"?

A. R. Samson writes in Business World On Line HERE:

‘Fruit salad’

‘Economists like to correlate different sets of variables to come to a conclusion like when interest rates rise, inflation is expected to go down as a result. But it is important to group variables that are common and therefore do not taint the conclusion. For instance, a connection can be made between the schedule of a boxing match of the nation’s favorite sports icon leading to light traffic, lower mass attendance, and a drop in crime rate.
…
Another example of this fruity fallacy is the expectation that when there is an increase in money supply, the economically illiterate checks his savings passbook to wonder why his cash balances remain the same. Confusing macroeconomics with personal finance is yet another case of mixing apples and oranges.
Except if you count them both as fruits, apples and oranges are not supposed to be lumped together as if they are identical. Unrelated statistics being wrongly used together constitute the fallacy of mixing apples and oranges.

But like the economic ideas they usually illustrate, our two fruits seem to have dominated the metaphor for irrelevance. Economists do not easily switch imageries. Why is the "invisible hand" (driven by greed and selfishness with no regard for the common good) used as the image for a free market which is unfettered by regulations save supply and demand and perfect information? Why not use the philosopher’s favorite image of the "absent clockmaker" to represent the sometimes chaotic functioning of the universe as if no one is in charge?’

Comment
The short answer is that the misleading belief in ‘an invisible hand’, wrongly attributed to Adam Smith, is an invention, a myth, now endemic among many practicing modern economists, and, sadly, confirmed by some historians of economic thought who should know better (I’ve tried my best to refer them to Adam Smith’s texts, but, I suppose the attractive pull of their own modern agenda for what makes markets work is too much to forego).

Markets Do Not Cause Violence

Joshua J. McElwee reports on William Cavanaugh’s (a DePaul University theology professor and author of The Myth of Religious Violence) speech in The National Catholic Reporter HERE

‘Religion professors discuss sources of violence’’

‘In fact, he argued, "There is no good reason for thinking that religious ideologies and institutions are more inherently prone to violence." Giving a one-hour whirl-wind tour of the history of the development of the division of secular and religious institutions, Cavanaugh told the some 150 professors gathered for the weekend that the notion of religion as the greatest perpetrator of violence in the world was a "myth" -- and that academic study needs to look at "under what circumstances the invisible hand of the market or the idea of the United States as world liberator also produce[s] violence.’

Comment
Without arguing the contrary case about religion being a source of strife, I observe that the Old Testament covering the history of a tribe of religious minded people in the Middle East from the 8th century BCE and the history of Christianity for 2,000 year to now, and Islam from the 8th century CE to now, clocks up a pretty impressive record on both internal and exported violence that would require considerable effort for the so-called ‘invisible hand of the market’ to approach a comparable level of promoting violence on a similar scale. Even adding ‘the idea of the United States as world liberator also produce[s] violence’ (whatever that means) would hardly dent the record of religious-inspired violence.

There is no, and never was any, ‘invisible hand of the market’, which, after all, is an invented myth from the 1950s and wrongly attributed to Adam Smith (see Paul Samuelson, Economics: an analytical introduction, 1948: 29, McGraw-Hill). It was an isolated metaphor used by Adam Smith, which he did not relate to markets, and it has become ubiquitous in modern media.

Indeed, ironically for Professor William Cavanaugh, it was commonly used in the 17th-18th centuries by Christian divines in a multitude of their theological texts; see Professor Peter Harrison (Chair of Theology at Oxford University): Adam Smith and the `History of the Invisible Hand’, Journal of The History of Ideas, Volume 72, No. 1, January, 2011: 29-49.

But even if we conceded the misattribution it still gives a very short historical period for it to clock up mass violence on a comparable scale to that in societies under the sway of beliefs in invisible gods, spirits, demons, and fairies, where violence was experienced daily at the household level commensurate with the lowly status of women and children (sanctioned by the Bible) and upwards at all levels through to the nation state and beyond to others (including the horrors of the 30 years war across north-central Europe, which cost 6 million – mainly civilian – lives and countless rapes).

Indeed, Scots like Adam Smith lived within the social memory of the last religious hanging in Scotland, when young Aitkenhead, a 20 year old divinity student, was hanged for blasphemy in 1697, and the last confused old woman denounced as a ‘witch’ was burned alive in 1727.

For an account of the mainly awesome historical account of life under the regime of Christian violence, inspired by religious superstition among violently squabbling sects, see Graham, H. G. [1899] 1937. The Social Life of Scotland in the Eighteenth Century, London: A & C. Black. This is what everyday folk experienced in Scotland, where the power of the zealots who caused it was well known to Adam Smith and his contemporaries.

Now little of this violence was to do with supply and demand analysis or market behaviour. Markets are neutral; they are not the instigator of violence. People cause violence, under religious influences that they find convenient to hate supposed enemies, who believe in different ideas or God or, as bad, different Gods. The closest analogy to religious violence is that of criminal alcohol gangsters and drug barons, who do not function in open and free markets, under the rule of law.
[See Adam Smith, History of Astronomy, ([1744-50; 1795 posthumous] 1980].

An Avoidable Tragedy

A post I read recently by Barry Belmont (sorry I have lost the url) referred to Garrett Hardin’s, ‘tragedy of the commons’, and said in part:

“Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another. . . . But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit–in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.”


Comment
I am amazed that this is often quoted today as another rock to throw at markets by politically-motivated campaigners of a certain hue. It’s not that they are bad; they just do not get it.

Yet in the presentation of the problem of open and free access to the commons, it contains the proper answer. The invention of property by our ‘savage’ ancestors started a process by which the common free forests, land, and all that came from them acquired prices for their use by those who claimed ownership of them. If they successfully held on to what they claimed, they changed the tragedy from reckless free use and destruction eventually to permissive use by market prices after millennia of tyrannical force by a few individuals.

Over-fishing of the world’s oceans comes from free access to them. What nobody owns tends to be wasted, despite a few individuals who restrain themselves. Where quotas are established, cheating becomes endemic.

It is the ownership of property that begins to remedy the drift to the tragedy. If there was another solution that worked – violent territorial claims were one remedy tried millennia ago, which had serious costs (still does) in warfare, dynastic quarrels provoking wars every bit as tragic as over-grazing, over-fishing and over-use, and endless jealousies of foreigners - then it would have been tried aeons ago.

When will they ever learn?

Optimism About Free Markets

Let me introduce you to the best 640 words on optimism and free markets that I have read for a long time. They were written by Eamonn Butler, Director of the British think tank, The Adam Smith Institute, London. He is also the author of Adam Smith: a primer (IEA) and more recently, Austrian Economics: a primer (2010).

They are a nice complement to another piece of rest and restoration reading that I have enjoyed these few weeks in France (two more to go). I refer to Matt Ridley’s, ‘The Rational Optimist: how prosperity evolves’, from Fourth Estate (Harper Collins, London), of which I may write something soon.

Eamonn Butler’s ‘Optimistic about free markets’ is fine presentation of liberating ideas that throw light on the current crisis and what can be done, utilizing markets and judicious tax reforms, rather than fiddling about at the behest of pressure groups, worthy and otherwise (mostly the latter):

Read and enjoy:

‘Though my colleagues at the Adam Smith Institute regard me as the 'down' man, always seeing the difficulties presented by any new idea, underneath I'm really an optimist. I really believe that the free market will triumph, despite everything that our system of government conspires to do to shackle it. The free market is an entirely natural system, like evolution itself, which grows and adapts whatever adversity it faces. You can concrete over a path but still, before long, the grass pokes through. So do markets.

And I'm optimistic that Britain will sort out its tax and benefits system, and adopt a flat tax on incomes and a negative income tax to relieve poverty. Looking at the first tentative proposals of the coalition government in general and of the welfare and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith in particular, I think we can see the first green blades of common sense breaking through here too.

Our tax system is fiendishly complicated. Civil servants like it that way, because it creates work for them. Whenever you try to tax people, they will find ways round it. And when your own money is at stake, it is worth buying in good accounting brains to protect it. So tax becomes a cat and mouse game with the Treasury: a new tax is introduced, people find ways to avoid it (quite legally), so the Treasury has to close off the loopholes with new rules. A few years of that, and the rule book gets pretty complicated. The standard tax guide for accountants now runs to about 11,000 pages across four volumes.

We should cut right through all this nonsense and have a flat tax – as we have said many times in our publications on the flat tax. Cut out all the deductions, the loopholes and the clawbacks, and have a low, standard rate of tax that applies to everyone. Then everyone knows what they and their fellow workers are expected to pay. No escape and (sadly for accountants and Revenue civil servants), no need for a lot of complicated measures to avoid tax or to make sure people pay it.

I am optimistic that similar simplicity might come to social benefits too. We have roughly 51 different social benefits. They are designed – well, that's too strong: they have grown up under pressure from various interest groups – to make sure that everybody's unique circumstances are catered for, and that nobody falls through any cracks in the system. A laudable aim, but a madly complicated result. We should scrap it all and have perhaps just two benefits – a long- term benefit for those who simply cannot earn for themselves, and a short-term benefit for those struck by temporary unemployment. Instead of a complicated raft of benefits, we should have a negative income tax. If you have a good income, more than enough to live on at a decent level, you should pay tax. If you don't have enough to live on, you should get cash – the negative bit of the tax.

After all, when you get a job, your employer pays a rate for the job. Employers don't ask you about your exact family and personal circumstances before setting your wage. It should be the same with the benefit system. That makes it simple to administer, and it encourages people to curb their costs instead of thinking about how to maximise what they can get from the authorities. True, some people in special circumstances will face hardship. But alleviating that is something that seems the proper role for the charitable sector. True, we need then to liberate the charitable sector, with things like US-style tax deductibility to encourage more philanthropic giving, so that charities can step in where the state falls short and real help is needed. But I am optimistic that we can do that, too.’

[FOR REGULAR ACCESS TO THE ADAM SMITH INSTITUTE (LONDON) AND ITS LIVELY BLOG, CLICK ON: http://www.adamsmith.org/]

High Quality Letter in the FT

Raymond S. Franklin,
Queens College,
City University of New York writes to the Financial Times (29 March) HERE


"Self-interest motive has won the war"

“There has been a running debate over the years about the relationship between Adam Smith's Moral Sentiments and his Wealth of Nations , the former published before the latter. The debate has been identified as the “Smith Problem”. My conclusion related to this debate – empathy derived from Moral Sentiments versus self-interest derived from the Wealth of Nations – is as follows: Pure empathy, the ability to identify with the “other” – even at the expense of self – is rooted in family, friendship and community, that is, in the social sphere that is outside the commodification of relations that define the market. The economy, cut loose from the social and moral sphere, involves individuals producing, buying and selling for material gain without seeking to imagine the consequences of the individual’s self-interested actions. Such actions may end up being virtuous to the whole society, but the virtue was unintended.

It is possible to hope that the two spheres of Smith, the moral (empathic) and economic (self-interest driven) could co-exist in some form of equilibrium. But, in my view, this was never demonstrated adequately and constitutes the “Smith Problem”.
Jumping forward to the present, it is clear in my judgment that the economic self-interest motive, dominant in the economic sphere of life, won the war. The institutions of the market have overwhelmed and penetrated the social spheres of life. Even the nuclear family, via, is viewed as a production unit with a division of labour and implicit prices in the way husbands, wives and children relate to each other.

Although I wish Mr Rifkin success, the idea of establishing an “empathic civilisation” at this juncture in history is singularly utopian”.

Comment
Raymond Franklin’s short letter is of remarkably high quality. The separation of the social from the economic sphere was well stated elsewhere by Karl Polanyi (1944: The Great Transformation), who rooted the separation in ‘capitalism’ and ‘markets’.

Smith did not separate them in this manner. In both sectors (in so far as for the sake of argument, I accept this distinction) the immediate awareness of individuals of others follows a similar pattern. We are closest to our immediate household kin (‘family, friendship and community’ – though Smith put it as family, friends and acquaintances, and the rest as strangers), whereas in markets we are directly involved in direct transactions with sellers/buyers and then with untold numbers of anonymous people in demand-and-supply linked chains. In both cases, we are dependent in many ways with the anonymous strangers, whom we know not, nor need to do so, and because of society we walk amidst strangers without flinching.

Franklin asserts that our social relationships are “outside the commodification of relations that define the market” (a Polanyi-type expression, hinting at a Marxist vocabulary), yet they share similar degrees of anonymity. We do not know nor need to know, from whom our daily, monthly, annual sustenance – material or emotional – comes from, yet each is equally important. Where family, friendly and acquaintances, and economic relationships break down they cause similar crises in personal circumstances.

We are sustained by normality in relationships in 'both' spheres, including the fact that in both the anonymity of distant participants is an essential (and productive) contributory factor in normal life (without it we would back in the wood-age). The market has not changed essentially the empathetic part of personal life – it has existed as long as humans lived in social groupings (in common with other primates). The elevation of the market to a separate entity is an invention of the imagination. It is not unique in history (see Morris Silver’s 1995 rebuttal of Polanyi’s thesis in ‘Economic Structures in Antiquity’).

There were anonymous ‘strangers’ even in a small tribe; more so in nearby tribes, and extremely so when unhappy events unfold from anonymous invading strangers from unknown lands, few of whom sought "to imagine the consequences of the individual’s self-interested actions’ upon those they visited with their ‘rapine and violence’.

The fact that “Nobel Prize-winning Gary Becker” advanced views about the “nuclear family”, while interesting as a scholarly exercise, does not in itself mean that the ‘market’ has in fact invaded the relationships between a husband and wife, and others.

There is no “Adam Smith problem” in English or German.

Smith on Laissez-Faire, Markets and Morals

Edward A. Fallone writes in the Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog
HERE

“As R. Kent Newmyer succinctly summarized it, in his book “John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court,” Marshall understood the rights of property ownership to include an individual’s right “to acquire property and deploy it creatively as he saw fit and to enjoy its fruits without hindrance.” (Newmyer p. 264) But this does not mean that Marshall embraced Adam Smith’s theory of completely free markets, where private business enterprises act completely free from government regulation. First of all, not even Adam Smith advocated for markets that were sealed off from all government regulation. Second of all, while the Framers of the Constitution were aware of Adam Smith, there is little evidence that Smith’s economic theories influenced the Constitution.”

Comment
Adam Smith did not have a “theory of completely free markets” – he did not subscribe to the laissez-faire views of some of the French Physiocrats and did not use the phrase at all. All of the beliefs that he did have such a theory are attributions from the 19th century; at best they were careless exaggerations that missed the nuances of Smith’s political economy; at worst they were the self-interested preferences of merchants and manufacturers in the industrialization of Britain (see: The Economist, the parliamentary spokesmen for mill owners, The Anti-Corn Law League, the Manchester School, J. S. Mill, and non-readers of Wealth Of Nations).

The whole tenor of Wealth Of Nations was about how unfree markets were in 18th century Britain, characterised by the deliberate actions of ‘merchants and manufacturers’ and of mercantile policies favoured by legislators and those special interests that influenced them.

In proposing that these interventions in markets should be swept away, Smith carefully acknowledged that markets should be operated under the rule of law and under the moral guidance of participants.

To ensure compliance, Smith indicated that regulations may be necessary on a case-by-case basis (example: banking, assaying, indicating the quality of certain manufacturers; buildings posing fire risks; and public cleanliness and safety). It was also essential that government intervene in the procurement of certain public works to facilitate commerce and certain public institutions to facilitate education, healthy minds and treatment of obnoxious diseases.

Edward A. Fallone’s assessment is correct broadly.

[NB: Edward Fallone, Associate Professor at Marquette, carries the following in his faculty biography:

“When I was a law student, my Corporate Law professor treated the study of insider trading, hostile takeovers and corporate crimes as the dry recitation of legal rules to be memorized. My approach to teaching is different. I teach these cases as human tragedies (and sometimes comedies) involving greed, betrayal and corruption. In my view, the law in this area serves the classic end of all laws: to protect ourselves from our own worst impulses.”

This about as close to a genuine moral ‘Smithian’ approach to people in markets as you can get.]

Review Commentary No. 3: Milgate and Stimson's "After Adam Smith":

Murray Milgate and Shannon C. Stimson, 2009. "After Adam Smith: a century of transformation in politics and political economy", Princeton University Press, Princeton, ISBN 978-0-691-14037-7

[I hope from now on to continue with my review/commentary of Milgate and Stimson’s excellent book, which was interrupted by domestic affairs (moving house, etc.,). To re-start my review commentary (Nos. 1 and 2 were posted in November and December)]

Introductory link reminder:

“There is no doubt that the popular (and academic) portrayal of the lifetime-works of Adam Smith is quite at odds with the actual contribution of the Adam Smith born in Kirkcaldy in 1723. It’s as if a completely new persona was invented bearing limited resemblance to him or his surviving works (sometimes referred to on Lost Legacy as the 'Chicago Adam Smith').

I sometimes wonder if anything similar happened to other historical figures from the ancient worlds of Greece and Rome, as it did spectacularly in the case of Jesus, and the thousands who stand out in the great Pantheon of those who are known to us today for their places in the history of human endeavour.

We have The Glasgow Edition of The Life and Correspondence of Adam Smith, from Oxford University Press (and the low cost Liberty Fund editions): The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth Of Nations, plus his extant essays, The History of Astronomy (1744-<1758) and Origins of Language (1761). To these we have surviving student notes of his lectures, Jurisprudence (1762-63) and Rhetoric and Belles Lettres (1763), plus the surviving Correspondence of Adam Smith, and, most important, the definitive biography, The Life of Adam Smith (1996, 2nd ed. 2010) by Ian S. Ross.

We ought, therefore, to be pretty sure as to what constitutes Adam Smith’s oeuvre, but instead of his works being a model of original scholarship, it is riven by contrary, incompatible, and mutually exclusive opinions as to what he wrote and what he meant, much of it advanced by scholars of indisputable integrity.

However, there is even considerable public doubt as to the exact words he used to express his ideas, despite the ready availability of all of his works to whomsoever wishes to consult them – sadly, many scholars pontificate with the certainties of the highly opinionated, who clearly have not read his works for themselves or have forgotten what they must have read years ago.

Now, something must have happened in the 219 years that separate Smith’s life from today. It’s not all down to scholarly slackness. Ideas about the past, and the people who lived through them, do not form in a vacuum. Adam Smith – contrary to trite media assertions – did not write his books as veritable bibles; he was not the ‘high priest’ of economics; he did not ‘invent’ capitalism; nor was he the manic believer in ‘laissez-faire’, and other similar nonsense (Smith neither of the words ‘capitalism’, nor ‘laissez-faire’).

Readers influence the accepted meanings of what an author writes (see, for instance, Willie Henderson, Evaluating Adam Smith: creating the wealth of nations’, 2006, Routledge). Smith's readers are no exception, and because Adam Smith’s name is often quoted (excessively so today) in support of, or as the problem of, current controversies in the (mis)management of economies, it adds to the intellectual – and popular – confusion as to what credence should be given to this or that declamation on one side of the other of those making the noise of interested faction in this first decade of the 21st century.

Lost Legacy readers will know that I am researching the origins of the spread of the notion of an actual (or metaphorical) “invisible hand” in the teaching of economics since the 1940s. From that teaching came forth consequential policies in business and government as students graduated and entered the “ordinary business of life”, and applied their teachers’ wisdom, either within society generally or in their own teaching careers, and inadvertently spreading a conceptual virus like the biological kind.

Earlier last year, I discussed Steven G. Medema’s excellent, The Hesitant Hand: taming self-interest in the history of economic ideas (Princeton University Press), which covered a slice through history from Adam Smith to 20th-century welfare economics. This fits well with the book by Murray Milgate and Shannon C. Stimson, which sweeps through the first hundred years from Adam Smith to the end of the 19th century.

It short, Milgate and Stimson have studied how the “grand ideas” that are attributed to Adam Smith are “as much the product of the gradual modifications and changes wrought by later writers”, such that we “are much the heirs of later images of Smith as we are of Smith himself”. I concur with Milgate and Stimson in this commentary on their book."

I, and many readers, living through the last half of the 20th century, during which “the gradual modifications and changes wrought by later writers” on the unchanged original exposition of the ideas of Adam Smith sleep in pristine innocence in his texts. Therefore, we can compare and contrast his original ideas with the “later images of Smith”, which are often a long way from those written by “Smith himself”.

How we got from what Adam Smith wrote to what modern economists assert about him is a study in the history of intellectual dilution and invented accretion. Murray Milgate and Shannon C. Stimson have written the first part of that history.

Commentary No. 3:

Milgate and Stimson provide an authoritative account of the distorted modern presentations of his thinking that claim him to express ideas and themes known today as a liberal capitalist perspective. It is worth the attention of readers to begin with what Milgate and Stimson say about the ‘rise and fall of civil society’ because this encompasses the basic differences between the way that societies were observed before Smith the 18th century (and earlier) and how they came to be observed from the 19th century (and later).

Society in the feudal (also in earlier allodial forms) and in the mercantile era was a top-down affair, at the head of which was the sovereign, with the feudal lords below him (and the disregarded lower orders below them). The ‘superior orders’ were given to continual unrest, specifically over dynastic issues and territory, including strategic alliances, marriages, and shifting family allegiances and the unavoidable strife they caused before the victors, settled the inheritance for generations of the ownership of vast physical properties, and the power that flowed from them.

These dynastic struggles affected neighbouring kingdoms in Europe in very long and bloody, wars that were fought across neighbouring domains (such as the 30-years and the 100-years wars). They required substantial physical resources and manpower and the means to maintain them. Hence the importance to kings, and those close to them, of mercantile notions of how to pay for and maintain sufficient resources to project their state powers.

Gold and silver were not sought for their own sake; kings did not just sit in their ‘counting houses, counting out their money’ like obsessed misers; money was the very essence of a king’s necessary self-defensive duty to protect his power and his inheritance against the regular violent challenges of rivals (among family kin, cousins, and distant opportunists). Hence, the king’s writ supported his claims on resources through enforcing feudal obligations in taxation and the provisions of armies, and through the ordering of civil society in ways that expressed his legitimate right to control his dominions as he saw fit, with everybody below him, secular and religious, obeying him as if he was ordained by an invisible God. (‘Treason never prospers because if it prospers none dare call it Treason.’)

The re-emergence of despised commerce (regularly condemned as impious by theologists) from around the 15th century, after the so-called ‘dark ages’ since the fall of Rome in the 5th century, was crude, rude and none too genteel, and its participants were liable to be audaciously robbed and bullied by Lords and local disorders, and none too fussy about morals themselves. Despite these unpromising beginnings, merchants and their customers slowly transformed the meaning of traditional civil society by creating, unintentionally, an alternative means to relative wealth from within it. Commerce did not require a revolution; it just needs to find customers.

Milgate and Stimson capture the broad sweep of these changes in Chapter 3 (‘Rise and Fall of Civil Society) by writing a brilliant, intellectual account of the transformation towards a different society, identified by the questions asked by Adam Smith, and others, of the shibboleths of the mercantile state and the associated government regulations that enforced local Incorporated Guilds and international royal-chartered monopolies, of which the East India Company was the most morally disgusting.

Much wringing of hands among philosophers and divines - did it enhance the values of civil society or cause their degeneration? - began with the first appearance of commerce. James Steuart, the last of the traditional mercantilists, equivocated in his Principles of Political Economy (1767), as did another author, Adam Ferguson, the first of what became the new discipline of sociology, in the same year.

Ferguson had an on-off relationship with Smith and an almost romantic vision of the Roman Republic and the civic potential for morality in human society. He saw the progress of commerce, in particular that of the division of labour, as a dual-headed benign blessing, and a not so benign monster.

Karl Marx in Capital mistakenly praised Ferguson, the “tutor”, to Smith, ‘his pupil” from prior publication of his Essay on Civil Society (1767) before Smith’s Wealth Of Nations (1776).

In fact, Smith’s famous references to the productivity of the division of labour, were taken verbatim from Smith’s Glasgow Lectures on Jurisprudence (1762-63), which circulated (as was the norm) as students notes in Glasgow and Edinburgh, where Ferguson probably read them. Ferguson certainly quarrelled with Smith about his allegations of ‘plagiarism’, though how original Smith’s reporting was on the role of the division of labour is questioned today by J-L Peaucelle: ‘Adam Smith’s use of multiple references for his pin making examples’, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 13:4, pp480-512.).

Milgate and Stimson’s treatment of these episodic events among the literati are thorough and stimulating, and readers unfamiliar with these debates can glean a great deal from them. The civil-society debate continued in Smith’s work, and in those who like Mandeville preceded him, and those who followed later, such as Ricardo, Mill and Marx, though, as the decades slipped past, the issues matured and their content changed.

Smith is quoted (p 48) from his History of Astronomy (named, by Milgate and Stimson, for an unstated reason, as his ‘lectures’, and date them ‘ca. 1750’); as viewing society as resembling an invented ‘system’ connecting the different movements and effects of reality. They quote from Wealth Of Nations; I quote the whole reference:

“It is thus that every system which endeavours, either by extraordinary encouragements to draw towards a particular species of industry a greater share of the capital of the society than what would naturally go to it, or, by extraordinary restraints, force from a particular species of industry some share of the capital which would otherwise be employed in it, is in reality subversive of the great purpose which it means to promote. It retards, instead of accelerating, the progress of the society towards real wealth and greatness; and diminishes, instead of increasing, the real value of the annual produce of its land and labour.

All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men. The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society. According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expence to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.” (WN IV.ix.50-52: 687-89)

Clearly, Smith is not talking about the system that exists (has it ever existed?), but of an imagined system, which if it did exist, then society in practice would be better off than the existing distorted systems of ‘preference and restraint’ will ever be, as long as the ‘preferences and restraints’ continued.

However, the existing mercantile system, despite its drawbacks, of which it had many and against which Smith made a “very violent attack” in Wealth Of Nations, could not stop all ‘progress to opulence”, nor stop it prospering (WN IV.ix.28: 674).

Milgate and Stimson (p 48) assert that “the obvious and simple system of natural liberty” lies at the centre of Smith’s account of the market mechanism” and, further, that “it displaces the centrality of both the state and the direct influence of statesmen” from the market “space”.

In essence, this is the main challenge of market forces to the old verities of civil society; the king, if not dead, is made redundant.

I shall return to this evocative idea and place some caveats upon it in my next review/commentary post on Milgate and Stimson’s excellent book.

Why Use Superstition to Explain Markets?

Mark Perry, professor of economics and finance at University of Michigan (Flint) writes a seasonal piece for (US) “Thanksgiving” (HERE): quoting an example from in Boston Globe in 2003.

“Giving Thanks for Capitalism, The Invisible Hand, the Miracle of the Free Market and No Turkey Czars”

“Like in previous years, you probably didn't call your local supermarket ahead of time and order your Thanksgiving turkey this year. Why not? Because you automatically assumed that a turkey would be there when you showed up, and it probably was there when you showed up "unannounced" at the grocery store to select your bird.

The reason your Thanksgiving turkey was waiting for you without an advance order? Because of "spontaneous order," "self-interest," and the "invisible hand" of the free market - "the mysterious power that leads innumerable people, each working for his own gain, to promote ends that benefit many." And even if your turkey appeared in your local grocery stores only because of the "selfishness" or "corporate greed" of thousands of turkey farmers, truckers, and supermarket owners who are complete strangers to you and your family, it's still part of the miracle of the marketplace where "individually selfish decisions lead to collectively efficient outcomes."

In a 2003 Boston Globe column titled "Giving Thanks for the Invisible Hand" Jeff Jacoby explains below why he is thankful for the miracle of the invisible hand that makes affordable turkeys automatically available so efficiently at Thanksgiving:

The activities of countless people over the course of many months had to be intricately choreographed and precisely timed, so that when you showed up to buy a fresh Thanksgiving turkey, there would be one -- or more likely, a few dozen -- waiting. The level of coordination that was required to pull it off is mind-boggling. But what is even more mind-boggling is this: No one coordinated it...

Adam Smith called it "the invisible hand" -- the mysterious power that leads innumerable people, each working for his own gain, to promote ends that benefit many. Out of the seeming chaos of millions of uncoordinated private transactions emerges the spontaneous order of the market. Free human beings freely interact, and the result is an array of goods and services more immense than the human mind can comprehend. No dictator, no bureaucracy, no supercomputer plans it in advance. Indeed, the more an economy *is* planned, the more it is plagued by shortages, dislocation, and failure.

It is commonplace to speak of seeing God's signature in the intricacy of a spider's web or the animation of a beehive. But they pale in comparison to the kaleidoscopic energy and productivity of the free market. If it is a blessing from Heaven when seeds are transformed into grain, how much more of a blessing is it when our private, voluntary exchanges are transformed - without our ever intending it - into prosperity, innovation, and growth?”

Comments
I wonder where Professor Perry (and Jeff Jacoby) read where Adam Smith called the “invisible hand” the “the mysterious power that leads innumerable people, each working for his own gain, to promote ends that benefit many”, or where he described the “invisible hand” as a “miracle”?

What exactly is the “invisible hand”? Is it always benign? How does anybody know? Is it operated as an intention, a process, or an outcome? Is it divine?
Is it really the case that “the miracle of the marketplace” is where "individually selfish decisions lead to collectively efficient outcomes”? Even the word “efficient” is suspect because it is not one that Smith used (more a neo-classical invention).

Even allowing for the probable fact that Professor Perry’s “Thanksgiving” piece is not intended for technical scrutiny and that it is an example of a snappy piece of journalistic licence intended for popular consumption, I still find it disappointing that the existence of commercial markets for multi-millennia, based on the universal human behaviours of the propensity to “truck, barter, and exchange” (Book I, Wealth of Nations) is wrapped into such unscientific language and thinking as something allegedly “miraculous”, divine, and evidence of “God's signature”, yet how markets work has been known for several centuries.

The phenomenon of social markets which were once “surprising” and then a source of “wonder” has since the 18th century have matured to being “admirable” (Smith’s History of Astronomy, [1744-58], edited by Joseph Black and James Hutton, 1795).

Like the rainbow, which once amazed (‘pots of gold’) and frightened humans in equal measure under thrall of unscientific “pusillanimous superstition”, is now understood as a optical phenomenon to most school children who pay at least a modicum of attention to their lessons. Yet in economics, which claims to be a science, social if not natural, and among mathematical economists in particular, the metaphor of the invisible hand has become a corner stone of neo-classical market doctrine.

Look up almost any of the popular mainstream textbooks since the 1950s and you will find the invisible-hand metaphor spreading its non-secular gloss on a social phenomenon, which is understood by all neo-classical economists, in their cases, perfectly.

It’s a strange old world.

Spare Us From the Invisible Hand

Patrick Kilbride writes in Chamber Post HERE:

“Free People, Free Minds, Free Markets”

‘In the 18th-century, Adam Smith left us with the indelible image of markets producing desirable social outcomes through the work of an "invisible hand." ’

Comment
In an otherwise neat argument for both liberty and free markets, Patrick Kilbride spoils his case with modern nonsense about Adam Smith and his use of the metaphor of “an invisible hand”.

Smith did not use the metaphor when explaining either how markets work generally (Books I and II, Wealth Of Nations) or how some, but not all, merchant traders preferred to invest locally following their concerns about the higher risks of investing abroad or in shipping (Book IV.ii, Wealth Of Nations).

In fact, a close reading of the only place in Wealth Of Nations where he used the metaphor of an invisible hand, shows that he first explains in detail the circumstances leading some, but not all, merchant traders to behave as they did (paragraphs 1 to 8, chapter 2, Book IV), and only then deploys the metaphor for the consequences of their specific behaviour (“intending their own security”), conforming to the arithmetic rule that the whole (the national annual output of wealth, including local employment) is the sum of its parts – the more merchant traders who are risk averse, despite the high profits from foreign and colonial trade, the greater the total annual wealth, including domestic employment.

Modern economists have invented a whole new meaning to Smith’s singular use of the metaphor, giving it the characteristics of a “law” of markets, though it was never stated as such by Adam Smith.

The modern invented meaning is commonly taught in first year economics courses and textbooks, and such is the effect of it on modern economists, it is extremely difficult to dislodge it – they seldom actually read Wealth Of Nations or even the relevant paragraphs (1 thru 8) and, by relying on a truncated extract from paragraph 9 only, they remain solidly convinced that Adam Smith explicitly stated what their tutors told them he wrote.

This gives succour to hostile critics of markets who throw the “invisible hand” back at them (“invisible fist” or, as seen recently, “invisible middle finger”, and such like). But there is no actual “invisible hand”, it does not exist and never did. The metaphor is just that, a metaphor, and one that was popular in literature, sermons, and poems in the 17th and 18th centuries – I have a list of 59 examples of its uses, besides Smith’s.

Mathematicians called it into being when “proving” that general equilibrium in an imaginary market, loaded with assumptions that removed all semblances of real world economies, was a theoretical possibility (Debreu, Arrow). Others (Samuelson, Freidman) and among them propagandists against Soviet communist planning, used the metaphor to good effect – Stalin needed the gulags to enforce planning, but free markets had an “invisible hand” that did its work without menace.

Editors of Time, Newsweek, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and assorted media journalists loved the “invisible hand”, Nobel Prize winners sang it praises, and the epigones believed in its miraculous powers with the passionate certainties of Jihadists.

Worse, the invisible hand became an alibi of last resort, flaunted all round as if it existed. When it “failed”, the invisible hand was dumped among wails and the gnashing of teeth in wholesale “confessionals” (Alan Greenspan).

Markets suddenly became naked – they always were naked, but the veil of the invisible hand obscured their nakedness. It never was the answer to everything that could go awry in the normal condition of disequilibrium in all economies, much of it excited to crises by public policy interventions by legislators and those who influenced them.

Smith was right about them and the damage they could inflict – fortunately “there is a lot of ruin” in an economy, as he might have put it in another context...

A Small Step for Cubans?

The other evening, watching television, an item on the news caught my attention. Apparently, a group of Cuban farmers had been given permission from the Raul Castro government to produce lettuces for private.

This permission seemed to have shown early results, mainly in the form of more lettuces for people who wanted to buy them, in itself an unexceptional outcome to those among us who appreciate how markets work, but for those sceptics, living in the richest economies on the globe, whose impatience with markets leads to their condemnation of them (because they don’t solve all the problems they imagine that they should solve), the new Castro experiment is the thin of end of the wedge to perdition.

Now I have no illusions about Raul Castro, or his brother for that matter, nor for any of the Chinese communist leadership experimenting with capitalist incentives, nor their Vietnamese neighbours, but I do recognise sensible pragmatists who have realised at last that their idealist systems do not work.

Their ideological certainties may make them, and what Lenin< called their “useful idiots” overseas, feel superior to “bourgeois lackeys” like we classical economists, but the realities show them to be utterly wrong about doing away with markets.

The short film clip showed two brothers loading their lettuce harvest onto a waggon, already bursting at the edges with lovely, green lettuces destined for market (or government warehouses – it wasn’t clear which). The sudden rise in production looked phenomenal. Marxists can argue against markets but nobody can argue with an empty market stall under their system and a full one under the “permission” to produce for reward.

I have to say that I watched the changes before me – the brothers were laughing with pride – and I thought of Adam Smith describing how markets worked in Book I and II of Wealth Of Nations and their morality in Moral Sentiments. Instead of their sisters and daughters prostituting themselves to cater for sex tourism, they can work voluntarily in food production or whatever for the benefit of themselves and their customers, if only Castro’s bureaucrats – never short of lettuce under the socialist system – would only get out of the way.

Adam Smith No Ideologue

Baron Bodissey writes long articles in the “Gates of Vienna” (HERE)and is connected (how, is not clear) to The Fjordman Files HERE the themes of which are too complex, long and not related much to Lost Legacy’s focus on Adam Smith.

“The Scottish philosopher Adam Smith, professor at the University of Glasgow, published his famous The Wealth of Nations in 1776 where he argued in favor of freedom of enterprise. Government should interfere with commerce as little as possible and limit itself to three primary duties: Provide defense against foreign invasion, maintain civil order with courts and police protection, and sponsor certain indispensible public works and institutions that could not make adequate profit for private investors. Smith made the pursuit of self-interest in a competitive market the source of a natural harmony and equilibrium. The “invisible hand” of free competition would gradually lead to increased wealth for all.”

Comment
I take the view that if Baron Bodissey is wrong in both detail and in general about a small paragraph from his long histories of the world, such as Adam Smith’s role in his big-picture spectacular history of everything, I expect the rest of his article may well contain similar errors too.

When Adam Smith wrote Wealth Of Nations he was no longer a professor at a University of Glasgow. He left the university in 1764 to undertake tutorial duties with the Duke of Buccleugh in a tour of Europe (1764-1766, during which he commenced writing his famous book from lectures notes from his professorial stint (1751-64), published in 1980 as Adam Smith’s Lectures On Jurisprudence (1978; Oxford University Press) and possibly from notes of his Edinburgh lectures, 1748-51. Wealth Of Nations took from 1764 to 1776 to write and was published in 1776.

Smith did not write in favour of “enterprise”; he wrote in favour of “commercial society”. The former is a projection of a modern word onto the past; in fact, he displayed throughout Wealth Of Nations strong suspicions about the conduct of “merchants and manufacturers”.

To summarise Smith as saying that “Government should interfere with commerce as little as possible” is another back projection onto the historical facts. It conflates Smith’s “violent attack” on the conduct of political economy in mid-eighteenth century Britain, in the form of “mercantile”, government-sponsored, monopoly privileges granted as favours to special interests, as promoted by individual legislators, and those who influenced them, often associated with bribery and other favours (of which the East India Company was a prominent example), with modern misinterpretations of Smith’s legacy by his epigones.

Smith was not opposed to government-directed activities, and those he specifically advocated were not minor aberrations. Defence was a major expense in the annual budget – the seven-years war with France cost £120 millions – and it remained a major budget item well into the 19th century. The defence sector employed tens of thousands annually, both in the defence establishment (unproductive soldiers and seamen) and in productive defence employees, manufacturing defence supplies for a profit for the defence establishment. Technologies associated with defence, shipping, navigation, charts, overseas exploration and bases, and foreign relations, played a major role in the changing domestic economy and in British international trade.

“civil order with courts and police protection” was an absolutely crucial pre-condition for the development of a domestic commercial society. It was not just an “expense” to be minimised in a sort of 19th-century “watchman state”. Without justice, society would “crumble into atoms” and “a man would enter an assembly of men as he enters a den of lions” (Moral Sentiments II.ii.4: 86). With the growth of commerce, the role of contracts proliferated and was reflected in the administration of law, and the professions of lawyers.

Smith’s observation is inadequately stated as “indispensible public works and institutions that could not make adequate profit for private investors”. This is a major task, the scale of which is hidden in the brevity of Baron Bodissey’s sentence.

The appalling state of roads in 18th-century Britain required the building of thousands of miles of roads; the construction of canals, likewise; and the dredging of the hundreds of harbours around Britain added to a major capital investment in both the building and, crucially, the annual maintenance of this infra-structure on a scale that mocks the dismissive assertion that this policy was one requiring the government to “interfere with commerce as little as possible and limit itself” to a few minor tasks.

Assuming that Smith’s suggestions for government were adopted by an 18th or a 19th-century government, it would have required the substantial commercial activity of scores of commercial firms for the profitable building and maintenance of the infra-structure, spread over many decades.

That the building of these projects could never repay the projectors (Smith’s original point) did not mean that they could not make a profit for building and/or maintaining them if the government funded their erection. How they were to be funded was a matter for the public finances (fight fewer wars?), which does not in any way limit their economic impact given existing relationships between government funding (defence, is classic) and commercial suppliers of the means (infra-structure builders). Most ‘watchman-state’ attributors to Adam Smith miss the point.

[Of course, the notion of the ‘watchman state’ is wrongly attributed to Adam Smith; it was actually invented as an idea by Ferdinand Lassalle, the 19th-century, fire-brand socialist – Adam Smith, once again was innocent).

Baron Bodissey in identifying Smith’s “limited” role for government to “indispensible public works and institutions”, missed out saying anything about “public institutions” (even missing the adjective, “public”, as used by Smith in Wealth Of Nations), which is somewhat sad because the sheer scale of intervention that would have been necessary to put his recommendations into effect hides the extent of the prime role of education he envisaged for a commercial society.

Briefly, to erect a “little school” in every parish would have involved more than 60,000 such schools across the country – though Scotland already had “little schools”, having started on mass education in the 1600s). Add the teachers for such schools to the simple buildings, and book supplies, this was a formidable undertaking – if it had been taken up.

Smith discusses the role of government (Book V, Wealth Of Nations) under the heading of public finance – budget items and taxation. He does not disucss the role of intervention of a legislative kind. He was ferociously critical of much government legislative intervention – the creation of monopolies, protectionism and barriers to trade, jealousies of trade, and wars cause by such, and the imposition of various statutes (Apprentices, Settlement, Guilds, Patents of monopolies, and such like), and colonial policies. This does not mean he did not envisage a regulatory role for government.

Smith advocated certain other roles too. Among these there are his call for government intervention in special cases, even when such regulations are “a manifest violation of that natural liberty”, as the issuance of “promissory notes” for small sums (WN II.ii.84: 324), a small step in 18th-century banking, but one that was bound to expand with the expansion of commercial banking . Smith associated such interventions with the building of party wall to prevent the spread of fire, as common sense, not excluded by ideology.

Baron Bodissey ends his ommision-filled paragraph with “Smith made the pursuit of self-interest in a competitive market the source of a natural harmony and equilibrium. The ‘invisible hand’ of free competition would gradually lead to increased wealth for all.” Lost Legacy readers will recognise the multiple errors in Baron Bodissey’s summary of Smith’s view wrapped in two sentences.

The derivation of “free competition” from the “invisible hand” (or vice versa) uses a redundant metaphor, which explains nothing and, being a metaphor, is not required to do so, and misleads by inferring the actual existence of such a entity (see Lost Legacy passim).

The metaphor of “an invisible hand”, used only once in Wealth Of Nations (Book IV.ii.9: 456) was really about the arithmeticl rule - 'whole is the sum of its parts' – the more merchants who invested locally, in preference to foreign trade because of their aversion to the risks of losing sight of their capital, the larger would be total local investment and employment.

Many merchants continued trading internationally profitably despite the perceived risks. This outcome – larger local investment and employment would result whatever the competitive, or non-competitive, commercial society, ergo, the invisible hand metaphor had nothing to do with competition – it was to do with profitability tempered by risks.

Baron Bodissey links conclusions from modern general equilibrium theory (“free competition would gradually lead to increased wealth for all”) and not from Wealth Of Nations.

“Increased wealth for all” is not contingent on free competition; “increased wealth for all” would be greatly assisted by “free competition" but has not yet been experienced so far, except in tiny pockets for short periods of time. Mercantile distortions on commerce have long been prevalent and despite them, a gradual increase in wealth has been experienced by large proportions of the populations of all commercial societies over long periods (in Britain’s case, since the 16th century).

There are no “invisible hands” guiding commercial societies; there are only the powerful affects of markets, distorted, hampered, and inhibited by the local institutions and habits prevalent in particular societies. Markets work despite obstacles put in their way (ruinous interventions, wars, civil strife, cultural prejudices, politics and religions). Some work more efficiently than others.

Smith observed and understood. He didn’t expect the utopia of free trade to occur, he didn’t perceive that “natural liberty” was an essential pre-condition for the “progress to opulence”. He was not a visionary, nor a ‘man with a mission’. He was a moral philosopher, not ideologue.

Let Millions of Indian Street Vendors Flourish into Middle Class Taxpayers

Sauvik Chakraverti (Libertarian Opinion From Indyeah) posts in ANTIDOTE HERE:

Sauvik Chakraverti covers the eviction of Indian street vendors in Bangalore and discusses the effects of this behaviour on the development of the poor trading classes. He finishes by contrasting the experiences of poor traders in Singapore:

“When Singapore became independent in 1965 (after Nehru’s death) there were 2,50,000 street hawkers in the city-state. They are all part of the tax-paying middle class today. The same can – and must – happen here.”

This is by way of a debate with a senior economist on Adam Smith. Plenty of material for an illustrated session with students on the realities of economic development. Follow the link.

The Hesitant Hand by Steve Medema: Review Part 2

In the ‘Hands of Adam’ Steve Medema shows his class as an historian of economic ideas. I found his account of the role of self-interest in commercial society very fair, without the usual cliché errors found in many accounts.

Starting from the proposition in Moral Sentiments that our benevolence towards others diminishes as social distance increases without damaging the social fabric because all others have degrees of overlapping benevolence right across society, and benevolence is not, and cannot be, the sole, or even major force, for exchange behaviour, and, fortunately for human habitation and procreation, it is not necessary that it be so.

A society, we are reminded in TMS can exist with loving relationships, and it is well when it does, but it can also exist without such feelings provided there is a ‘mercenary exchange of good offices’.

Enter here the famous assertion by Smith of the ‘butcher, the brewer, and the baker’ and our need when engaged in an exchange transaction to appeal to their interests not ours (be ‘other centred’; never selfish). Steve shows that for Smith, self-interest is not a ‘one way street’ – what a lot of senseless twaddle would be saved if miss-readers of Smith would get that right!

Steve correctly sets out self-interest in Smith’s lexicon:

‘that the pursuit of self-interest serves the best interests of society as a whole, that self-interest and the social interests are partners rather than enemies’ (19). Self-interest should be facilitated rather than restrained.

The explanation of why this was true for Smith is wonderfully clear, though, Steve notes, ‘Smith is at once vividly descriptive and maddeningly vague’. Echoing Mirabeau (thinking you serve yourself, you serve others), the individual attempts to employ his capital where he expects to earn the highest return, and in doing so, he generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it’, followed by the famous metaphor of ‘an invisible hand’.

Steve comments:

‘An invisible hand – this is a specific as Smith gets. What Smith meant by this is anyone’s guess, and plenty of guesses have been offered, ranging from God to government’. But whatever it is, Smith was convinced of its propensity to channel self-interest in socially useful directs’(20).

I can agree with that formulation as it encompasses Smith’s proper use of a metaphor, which is to explain something by adding ‘beauty’ when ‘so adapted that it gives due strength of expression to the object to be described and at the same time does so in a more striking and interesting manner’ (Smith: Lectures in Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, 1763).

A great deal of wasted ink and paper would be spared if only economists would read the nine paragraphs of Wealth Of Nations leading to the metaphor of the invisible hand and see how simply caps his technical description of economic and social process leading to people thinking they are serving themselves when in fact they serve general society, by his employing the common 18th-century metaphor of ‘an invisible hand’. Steve’s compromise treatment is masterly.

Smith develops the sense of ‘congruence’ (Steve’s word), even ‘harmony’ as ‘some would say’ (I prefer potential ‘congruence’) between private and social interests, to his critique of mercantile political economy and Physiocracy, both of which, Steve shows, inevitably distort by monopolies and misguided government interventions (those promoted by lobbying for special, especially corrupt, interests) and thereby interfering with the otherwise free actions of individuals judging their best interests in moral and legally constrained codes of behaviour and acting accordingly.

Here Steve highlights something that is worth developing (21). The absence in Smith’s work of a critique of the ‘internal logic’ of mercantile or Physiocratic thinking: on their own terms they promote the ends they seek (the accumulation of gold or the growth of agriculture output) – as China seems to be sliding towards in buying up the planet with its mountains of US treasury bills and hoping to hold down peasant incomes.

Smith disagreed with their consequences – state action by the former theories (necessarily at the sacrifice of liberty) versus growth of real wealth (the annual output of the ‘necessities, conveniences, and amusements of life’) through individual self-interest in conditions of liberty.

Steve confronts the conundrum of self-interested actions can be malign. Some voices, bought and paid for, advocate absolute freedom for corporations and individuals, the consequences of which are discussed widely. Unfortunately, the remedies (especially from the environmental lobby) of which involve draconian interventions by uncontrollable governments, agencies and neighbourly busy-bodies, plus ‘that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesmen or politician’ (WN IV.ii.39).

Steve recognises that Smith was never a one-track voice for everything changing at once. He was far more pragmatic; never an ideologue. He did not make many predictions, nor did he expect much to change, except ‘slowly and gradually’, perhaps in many cases never quite reaching its end goal. He said as much in respect of free trade ever becoming accepted in Great Britain this side of ‘utopia’.

His message was that competitive markets were generally better than state grand plans. He didn’t even consider that ‘natural liberty’, as was envisaged by the Physiocrats, was a necessary condition for the spread of opulence – if it was, he opined, it is unlikely that any country would ever have progressed towards it (WN ix.28: 674).

Nor, Steve observes, were the necessary roles of government minimal (23) – Smith was not a laissez-faire purist or even near being so. The list of proposed roles for the state, collected in Book V and elsewhere scattered throughout Wealth Of Nations, is quite long, and probably much longer than the purveyors of Smith, the laissez-faire advocate, realise. Steve covers this material with both conviction and economically.

Smith, says Steve:

‘was not, as some have imagined, a proto-modern. Smith’s view of man is not economic man with his rational, single-minded pursuit of his self-interest’. Furthermore, Smith did not argue that private action was optimal, in the modern efficiency sense, nor even that it was superior to governmental alternatives. Smith considered the link between private and social interests partial and imperfect, but he was also of the mind that self-interest, properly channelle, tended to engender positive results, rather than negative ones, and that government interference with its operation in the economic sphere would generally lead to inferior results’ (25).

I think we can sum up Smith’s approach as being: ‘markets where possible; the state where necessary’.

Steve’s last line in this chapter is evocative:

‘Self-interest, then, had finally found legitimacy’.

[In Part 3 we move on to the ‘Harnessing of Self-Interest’ with ‘Mill and Sidgwick and the evolution of market failure’.]

Markets as a First Choice

“There’s a real distinction between being in favor of free markets and being in favor of whatever business does”, from a heading in Death and Taxes Blog reporting a lunchtime talk and subsequent Q & A session between Milton Friedman and the audience HERE: http://politics.randomplayground.net/2009/06/02/theres-a-real-distinction-between-being-in-favor-of-free-markets-and-being-in-favor-of-whatever-business-does/

Comment
It’s not clear if Milton Friedman actually put it that way, but it is pretty clear from his talk and answers to questions that he did not exempt businesses from criticism for their actions in practice.

How could he? He already had the excellent example of Adam Smith noting almost unanimously in Wealth Of Nations the scheming monopolistic tendencies of ‘merchants and manufacturers’, small groups of tradesmen in the town Guilds system seldom meeting even for merriment and diversion and ending up conspiring to raise prices, and he knew how legislators and those who influenced them proposed legislation that benefited their business sponsors by curtailing supply with tariffs and prohibitions to widen their markets and raise prices.

In short, for over 250 years businesses pursued their individual self-interests precisely in their self interests. The antidote was not, is not, nationalisation or regulation; it was and remains extending competition through freer markets.

I remember listening in astonishment to an MP, shortly after Mrs Thatcher’s government deregulated the exchange in foreign currencies so that licensed people could open little Bureau du changes in the high street to compete with local banks. The MP complained that in his constituency these new licensed exchange bureaus were charging much more to trade foreign holiday currency than the local banks. ‘It is a rip-off’, he cried, and wanted legislation to stop it. And this was a Conservative Party MP!

The answer, instead’ surely was to publicize the higher prices and the profits. That’s all it would take to induce new entrants into the exchange rate business in pursuit of the alleged ‘high’ profits, and let competition do its work (which is what happened, eventually).

Freer market advocates do not defend all, or any specific actions, of business entrepreneurs; they advocate using markets were possible to allow the impartial gales of competition to discipline market behaviours and benefit consumers.

You don’t need to introduce battalions of inspectors (and their plus premises, supervisors, pensions, and expenses) to patrol the country looking for ‘excess profiteering’ – and battalions of lawyers to be engaged in prosecuting and defending alleged profiteers. Nor does it require business personnel to meet in lobbying organisations – with their expensive staffs and insider contacts – to look after their interests, monitor legislation proposals, and generally subvert the independence of the legislature (and compromise the integrity of 'insiders'. Competitive markets are the best available instrument.

In that prescription, Lost Legacy and Milton Friedman are in agreement with Adam Smith.

A Myth of Free Markets

Dan McLaughlin posts (17 April) a book review of “Free Lunch” By David Cay Johnston in Citizen Economists HERE: http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2009/04/17/free-lunch-by-david-

“Quotations from Adam Smith are generously sprinkled throughout the book, and made to sound as though the champion of free markets would have supported Johnston’s proposals for big government and heavy regulation of business.

According to Johnston’s analysis, the problems that modern America faces are due to alleged “deregulation”. The author summarizes his confusion early on when he says “In the past quarter century or so our government has enacted new rules that have created not only free markets, but rigged ones.” If the markets are “rigged”, they are not free in any sense. The regulators rig the market and make it un-free. It shouldn’t be that hard to make the connection. The regulation that he longs for has always been written by the regulated, to the detriment of competitors, taxpayers and the buying public.”

Comment
Dan McLaughlin makes a good point about ‘deregulation’. There is mantra circulating that ‘deregulation’ being bad and ‘regulation being good, wrapped in an assertion that the capitalist economies have been too laissez-faire and that the government has to intervene in the so-called ‘free markets’ supposed to exist all around us, summed as the government must introduce tighter regulation.

The problem with this debate is that the premise is incorrect. Markets are hardly free when the existing regulation (supported by laws, such as in the European Union, covering everything from hours of work, overtime, consultation over social issues, Health and Safety, discipline, redundancies, human rights, race, feminism, labelling, testing, supervision, insurance, minimum wages, pensions, copyrights, patents, planning procedures, banking and finance, and so on and on).

It’s not that these regulations are all bad – though some are barmy – it’s that their existence contradicts assertions about ‘free markets’, and I have only mentioned a few of them. Capitalist markets are dominated by Big Government, hence we do not have anything remotely like laissez-faire (which, contrary to assertion, never featured in Adam Smith’s political economy). It’s more accurately described as State Capitalism, with governments intervening with ever more legislation to impact on businesses, egged on or resisted by armies of professional lobbyists.

Not everybody who quotes from Adam Smith respects his legacy, nor do they all understand it. Dan McLaughlin appears to do so more than the author of the book he reviewed.

The Wonder, Not the Miracle, of Markets

Will Wilkinson, a research fellow at the Cato Institute and editor of Cato Unbound (an organisation I would expect normally to agree with broadly) writes:

“Obama's self-immolating capitalism”

“There are two capitalisms. There is mundane market capitalism and there is political capitalism. Markets regulated by the rule of law and governed by a freely functioning price system are post and beam in the architecture of prosperity. You step into a grocery and there in the freezer are your coveted waffles waiting as if someone knew you were coming for them. But no one is looking after your need for breakfast treats. Each looks after her own needs by looking to the free play of prices and there emerges a rough-but-remarkable convergence of the waffles wanted and the waffles supplied. As the great Adam Smith noted, it seems like magic, but it's not. It's just amazing -- in the way the evolution of the eye is amazing.”

Comment
Where does Will locate his last sentence is ‘noted’ in Smith’s works (as above): ‘As the great Adam Smith noted, it seems like magic, but it's not. It's just amazing -- in the way the evolution of the eye is amazing”?Markets may be amazing, but no miracles, nor magic, are involved (nor were they in the evolution of the eye).

How markets work is explained in Wealth Of Nations without relying on miracles or magic. The great 19th-century French polemicist for markets, Bastiat, dramatized the wonder of markets in providing Paris overnight with the items for its citizens’ breakfast.

We can appreciate the raw beauty of the rainbow without having to believe in miracles or magic. Smith called such outbursts ‘pusillanimous superstition’.

Amartya Sen's Two Brilliant Essays on the Relevance of Adam Smith Today

Amartya Sen writes two great articles of current relevance on Adam Smith. The shorter one is in the Financial Times HERE and the longer one is in the New York Review of Books HERE.

I recommend them both to you (following correspondents asking if I had read them, and, presumably, looking for my comments on Lost Legacy). As I have been busy completing my paper on ‘Adam Smith’s Alleged Religiosity’, I chose not to post a comment last week, but to generate more publicity for an approach with which I agree and I am pleased now to recommend them and I provide links to the two articles and a very short extract:

‘Adam Smith’s market never stood alone’

“For example, the pioneering works of Adam Smith in the eighteenth century showed the usefulness and dynamism of the market economy, and why—and particularly how—that dynamism worked. Smith's investigation provided an illuminating diagnosis of the workings of the market just when that dynamism was powerfully emerging. The contribution that The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, made to the understanding of what came to be called capitalism was monumental. Smith showed how the freeing of trade can very often be extremely helpful in generating economic prosperity through specialization in production and division of labor and in making good use of economies of large scale.

Those lessons remain deeply relevant even today (it is interesting that the impressive and highly sophisticated analytical work on international trade for which Paul Krugman received the latest Nobel award in economics was closely linked to Smith's far-reaching insights of more than 230 years ago). The economic analyses that followed those early expositions of markets and the use of capital in the eighteenth century have succeeded in solidly establishing the market system in the corpus of mainstream economics.

But Smith's defense of private trade only took the form of disputing the belief that stopping trade in food would reduce the burden of hunger. That does not deny in any way the need for state action to supplement the operations of the market by creating jobs and incomes (e.g., through work programs). If unemployment were to increase sharply thanks to bad economic circumstances or bad public policy, the market would not, on its own, recreate the incomes of those who have lost their jobs. The new unemployed, Smith wrote, "would either starve, or be driven to seek a subsistence either by begging, or by the perpetration perhaps of the greatest enormities," and "want, famine, and mortality would immediately prevail...."

Smith rejects interventions that exclude the market — but not interventions that include the market while aiming to do those important things that the market may leave undone.

Despite all Smith did to explain and defend the constructive role of the market, he was deeply concerned about the incidence of poverty, illiteracy and relative deprivation that might remain despite a well-functioning market economy. He wanted institutional diversity and motivational variety, not monolithic markets and singular dominance of the profit motive. Smith was not only a defender of the role of the state in doing things that the market might fail to do, such as universal education and poverty relief (he also wanted greater freedom for the state-supported indigent than the Poor Laws of his day provided); he argued, in general, for institutional choices to fit the problems that arise rather than anchoring institutions to some fixed formula, such as leaving things to the market.”

Amartya Sen received the 1998 Nobel Prize in economics; he teaches economics and philosophy at Harvard University and he has written an introduction for the anniversary edition of ‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments’ (Penguin Books, 2009) in which he discusses the contemporary relevance of Smith’s ideas.

How To Make a Problem Worse

Abdullah Waheed’s Blog HERE: carries this:

“Fishermen’s Demonstration”

“From an academic point of view the results of the demonstration was spectacular. Some of the participants rediscovered the theory of supply and demand, more than 200 years after Adam Smith described it in his Wealth of Nations. "When we catch more fish the price goes down; when we catch less the price goes up," a young participant said.

Umar's main demand was to empower fishermen to set their own prices. He does have a point here. Currently the market is a buyer's market where a cartel of monopolists decides the price because they are better organized with more resources. Fishermen could get better prices if they had collective bargaining power.

On the other hand, Umar's demand for base prices of Rf 45/kg for yellow fin tuna and Rf 10/kg for skipjack may not be feasible without government subsidies. The question is can the Maldives afford more subsidies in the present economic crisis?”

Comment
I found this snippet interesting. The problem is the “cartel of monopolists” which pays fishermen a price much lower than the desired price the fishermen want (presumably they can see how much their ‘yellow fin tuna’ and their ‘skipjack’ sell for at wholesalers’ cartel prices).

Their ambition is to secure, somehow, ‘collective bargaining power’, presumably by a new law or by collective action to break the cartel., and then to raise their prices to Rk 45/kg and Rf 10/kg respectively. The retail prices of the fish are not stated, but there are bound to be distribution costs and profit to be added.

If the government is to subsidise from taxation to bring the retail price down to what is currently affordable it seems this policy would open up other problems, not least of which is: to whom is the subsidy paid? The fishermen, the wholesale buyers, the consumer?

In the context of general subsidies already (‘can the Maldives afford more subsidies in the present economic crisis?’), distorting an already distorted market (the prevalence of the ‘buyers cartel’) is not a sensible policy.

Supply and demand at this level cannot be ignored. If the ‘participants’ take note of supply and demand (with or without Adam Smith’s cumbersome analytical structure) and it operates in the Maldives fishing sector, it suggests that the fishermen’s collective buying power will also rise and fall in its negotiated price, and so will government subsidies, and the retail price of fish.

The problem is caused by the buyers’ cartel and the fishermen’s submission to it.

Without knowledge of the geography of the Maldives I cannot suggest the appropriate response to implement the Smithian remedy of breaking monopoly powers on both sides of the market. But the answer lies in that area rather than in government (taxpayers’) subsidies.

As a correspondent reminds me, Adam Smith commented on the practice of subsidies and bounties for the fishing sector from government in Wealth Of Nations:

"Secondly, the bounty to the white-herring fishery is a tonnage bounty; and is proportioned to the burden of the ship, not to her diligence or success in the fishery; and it has, I am afraid, been too common for vessels to fit out for the sole purpose of catching, not the fish, but the bounty" (WN IV.a.32: p 520).

A Classic Example of the Misuse of a Metaphor

John McCarthy writes in Florida Today HERE:

“Gas-price rise 'illogical'
AAA spokesman can't equate it with the fall in demand and crude oil cost”

One supposedly inviolable law of classical economics is that when the supply of a resource is greater than demand for it, the price of that resource will fall. The "invisible hand" of the marketplace should see to that, the father of economics, Adam Smith, said.

Comment
I know of no ‘inviolable law of classical economics' that ever mentions ‘an invisible hand’ and I am sure that John McCarthy or anybody else does not know of one either.

I do know of countless statements since the 1950s that says there is a ‘theory’, ‘concept’, even ‘paradigm’, and now a ‘law’ that Adam Smith believed that market places were managed by ‘an invisible hand’, but that is not the same as Adam Smith actually having done so.

In fact, he didn’t; he mentions the 18th-century literary metaphor on ‘an invisible hand’ only once in Wealth Of Nations, but not in reference to his theory of markets, which he analyses and elaborates in Books I and II of his classic work.

His sole reference to ‘an invisible hand’ occurs in Book IV in his brilliant critique of mercantile political economy – the very same economic system practised by Georgian Britain, which caused the American rebellion in 1776-83, and produced eventually the United States of America.

And for the record, Smith didn’t mention the metaphor in the other two books of Wealth of Nations (Books III and V).

His reference to ‘an invisible hand’ occurs after he has explained how the risk- avoidance behaviours of some merchants prompts them not to send their scarce capital abroad to the British colonies in North America (dangerous sea passage, unknown trading partners, backed by local colonial laws and practices, and uncertain, though high, profits).

Their risk avoidance prompted these merchants (but by no means all, of course – those prepared to trade in the colonies did well because of the British monopoly of colonial trade, backed by the Royal Navy’s enforcement of the Navigation Acts) to invest their capital domestically, without the risks of sea voyages, where they knew with whom they traded and had knowledge of the reliability of the local courts, and were more certain about their, albeit perhaps lower, profits.

So, risk-avoidance, and the obvious arithmetical law that the whole is the sum of its parts, led to domestic British capital formation to be higher than it would be if more merchants had sent their capital abroad. Additional domestic capital invested locally added to the total of domestic investment, which in turn added to local employment and to national output.

Having said all these over several pages in Book IV, Adam Smith added the metaphor that these merchants – but clearly not the others! – were ‘led by an invisible hand’ to add to domestic investment and output, though they only intended ‘their own security’.

Look it up in Wealth Of Nations (WN IV.ii.9: p 456). That is all Adam Smith meant by the invisible hand- a summary explanation of what he had explained in straight economic terms, but never a ‘theory’, and certainly not a ‘law’, except, perhaps, of arithmetic.

Indeed, John McCarthy uses the rest of his article to explain with potential facts what is causing gas prices to remain high – real prospects of a refinery strike by the US Steel workers Union in Florida, causing retail gas companies to stock-pile gas inventories in the event of the strike. The higher the price of gas at the pump at present, the more of their future supplies will remain in their inventories for use during the strike. That will keep gas customers driving for longer during a strike.

Correct analysis from John McCarthy without any need to misuse Adam Smith’s literary metaphor. He could have re-cast his wrong reference to Adam Smith by, perhaps, suggesting that the oil companies are being restrained by an ‘invisible hand’ from reducing their prices in the prospect of the strike-bound near-future situation! (Just joking.)

But that is not how modern economists, and those influenced by them, see how Smith’s use of the famous metaphor was quite different from their 20th-century invented attribution to him.