Adam Smith on "the invisible hand": But there are many misconceptions about the invisible hand, starting with the belief that Smith himself was a absolute believer in it. In fact, he was not. Smith actually viewed merchants with great suspicion:
/"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." /Another misconception is that the invisible hand is a form of individualism. It would be hard to call the actions of a baker who spends all day baking bread for strangers "individualism." A more accurate word is /exchange,/ and it represents a balance between individualism and collectivism, even if that exchange is ultimately self-interested. True individualism is taking from the group without giving anything back; true collectivism is giving to the group without getting anything back. Seen in this light, the exchange inherent in the invisible hand should deserve the full and enthusiastic endorsement of liberals. Unfortunately, today's conservatives have corrupted the meaning of Smith's term. They use it to suggest that the pursuit of self-interest in the economy will always (or almost always) result in group benefit, and that individuals should feel free to pursue it. Ted Roche wrote: >>Don't get me wrong. I believe businesses need to move along to bigger and >>better hardware and >>operating systems in general, but I also know it is not always practical or >>appropriate. >> >> > > >Isn't that something we should allow the invisible hand of the free >market to drive? If customers believe there are alternatives that >provide a lower overall cost of ownership by allowing software to be >used over a longer lifetime, won't the customers make the decision to >support those products with better ROI? And the responsive vendors >succeed in the marketplace? > >Returning to your earlier analogy, is this like the government >mandating seat belts, or more like them requiring a 5-year, 100,000 >mile warranty? > >* If Windows keeps getting slower and slower in shipping new versions, >won't that provide the longevity you want? It would be interesting to >plot version against version and predict when Windows.NEXT will ship. >It was five years between XP and Vista, three years between XP and >2000. I'm not sure how XPSP2 and 2003 could fit in there. How much >longer should they go? > > > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
