RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. The sneaking arts of underling tradesmen are thus erected into political maxims for the conduct of a great empire. People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies.
RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
Unfortunatetly, quoting of the butcher and baker passage out of context is exactly what the 1980s Adam Smith tie-wearing Reaganite Gordon Greed is Good Gekko types did to promote the idea of Smith as an unabashed promoter of self-interest. A. L. Macfie's The Individual in Society (and his and other's work in the modern school of Scottish Political Economy, such as D. D. Raphael, Andrew Skinner, Ronald Meek) and also Heilbroner's papers The Paradox of Progress and especially The Socialization of the Individual in Adam Smith are good antidotes for this. Of course, so is reading The Wealth of Nations with Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments and Lectures on Jurispridence! Now, there is no doubt that in the TMS, Smith explicitly criticized those who view self-interest as the source of all 'affections and sentiments' as suffering from 'some confused misapprehension of the system of sympathy.' And that, for Smith, 'sympathy' (what we today call empathy) is the effective cement of society. So, if one argues that self-interest is the prime motivator for Smith in the WN, then they must be arguing for the old 'Das Adam Smith problem'--that the two works are inconsistent. There is now widespread general agreement that the view that Smith changed his mind between the two works and the two works are inconsistent has little evidence to support it. Macfie, argues that when Smith's notion of empathy is combined with the reason of the 'impartial spectator' (something like 'conscience'), the result is a rational sympathy (or sympathetic reason), from which arise the social codes and rules of behavior necessary if *proper* self regard is to benefit the community. The analysis goes on... The upshot is that self-interested behavior *may* result in socially desirable outcomes *if* it is moderated by self-control and socially responsible adherence to other social rules and codes of behavior (Smith's 'self-command' and 'sense of duty'). Thus, the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ lays out the institutional framework necessary for a 'society of perfect liberty' (not to be confused with perfect competition) and the _Wealth of Nations_ assumes that framework in its discussion of the 'self-interested' economic actor. In Heilbroner's terms, TMS is about the 'socialization of the individual' and WN is about the consequences of socialized individual action within the institutional framework of a 'society of perfect liberty'. Excessive greed is socially undesirable. As a NY Times piece put it a couple years ago, Adam Smith ain't no Gordon Gekko. -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:24575] RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. The sneaking arts of underling tradesmen are thus erected into political maxims for the conduct of a great empire. People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies.
RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
I appreciate the elaboration on Smith's moral philosophy, but the context of this discussion was whether Nader and populists were more like Smith than not. My clipped summary of Smith emphasized the contrast. No embroidery of Smith's moral thought can find any contact with the basic thrust of political populism, either 19th century style or Naderite. Restoring or creating fair market competition is not the most pressing theme in Nader's repertory, though it is not absent either. We should be at least as interested in accurately gauging current political trends as we are in rehabilitating dead economists. mbs Unfortunatetly, quoting of the butcher and baker passage out of context is exactly what the 1980s Adam Smith tie-wearing Reaganite Gordon Greed is Good Gekko types did to promote the idea of Smith as an unabashed promoter of self-interest. . . .
Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
I would say, Max, that while Smith may not approve of the populists, the populists saw themselves as in line with a Smithian interpretation of the world. On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:30:26PM -0500, Max Sawicky wrote: I appreciate the elaboration on Smith's moral philosophy, but the context of this discussion was whether Nader and populists were more like Smith than not. My clipped summary of Smith emphasized the contrast. No embroidery of Smith's moral thought can find any contact with the basic thrust of political populism, either 19th century style or Naderite. Restoring or creating fair market competition is not the most pressing theme in Nader's repertory, though it is not absent either. We should be at least as interested in accurately gauging current political trends as we are in rehabilitating dead economists. mbs Unfortunatetly, quoting of the butcher and baker passage out of context is exactly what the 1980s Adam Smith tie-wearing Reaganite Gordon Greed is Good Gekko types did to promote the idea of Smith as an unabashed promoter of self-interest. . . . -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
Michael Perelman writes:I would say, Max, that while Smith may not approve of the populists, the populists saw themselves as in line with a Smithian interpretation of the world. the above makes sense to me: in the U.S., at least, the late 19th century Populist movement was one of the little guys against the power of the elites (Eastern bankers, etc.) The cry was that the Big Corporations were rigging the market against the little guys. This suggests that the markets needed to be unrigged rather replaced by something different and better. That fits with the general Smithian viewpoint (though not necessarily with the _laissez-faire_ interpretation of his ideas). (Populism generally means a conflict between the mass of little guys against the elite, rather than a battle between classes or to end class domination.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
The observation about the populist theme of the many and the few, in contrast to class, is accurate. So much the worse for hackneyed class analysis. (Workers and peasants of the Bronx!) The way the Pops chose to 'unrig' the market included a) nationalizing the railroads; b) co-ops allowing farmers to band together in buying supplies and selling their output; and c) a new monetary system to replace the extant chaos of private banks. Laying this to Adam Smith is quite a stretch, sort of like looking for crucifixion symbolism in Hemingway. -- mbs the above makes sense to me: in the U.S., at least, the late 19th century Populist movement was one of the little guys against the power of the elites (Eastern bankers, etc.) The cry was that the Big Corporations were rigging the market against the little guys. This suggests that the markets needed to be unrigged rather replaced by something different and better. That fits with the general Smithian viewpoint (though not necessarily with the _laissez-faire_ interpretation of his ideas).
RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
I agree that characterization of Smith as populist seems peculiar to me. That said, I think many other characterizations of Smith are also wrong. Advocating markets in the 18th c., when the fetters of euro-feudal life were still in force strongly, and advocating markets in the late 20th c., are two very different things. But I understand that Max is interested in characterizations of Nader and not Smith, though his crack about 'dead economists' misses the point that many of us are interested in the writers of the past because we believe the issues they raised, and even debates about how we are to understand them, are relevant to the current political economy. I'm not interested in history of thought like admiring antique furniture or whatever--I'm interested in the ideas, and unlike most economists today I don't assume that whatever is more recent is better. Mat -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 1:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:24586] RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left I appreciate the elaboration on Smith's moral philosophy, but the context of this discussion was whether Nader and populists were more like Smith than not. My clipped summary of Smith emphasized the contrast. No embroidery of Smith's moral thought can find any contact with the basic thrust of political populism, either 19th century style or Naderite. Restoring or creating fair market competition is not the most pressing theme in Nader's repertory, though it is not absent either. We should be at least as interested in accurately gauging current political trends as we are in rehabilitating dead economists. mbs Unfortunatetly, quoting of the butcher and baker passage out of context is exactly what the 1980s Adam Smith tie-wearing Reaganite Gordon Greed is Good Gekko types did to promote the idea of Smith as an unabashed promoter of self-interest. . . .
