Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand: From Metaphor to Myth. Quote shown in video electronic page 2
http://www.aier.org/aier/publications/ejw_wat_may09_kennedy.pdf
The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics
Adam Smith
(1723-1790 )
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Smith.html
Today Smiths reputation rests on his explanation of how rational self-interest in a free-market economy leads to economic well-being. It may surprise those who would discount Smith as an advocate of ruthless individualism that his first major work concentrates on ethics and CHARITY. In fact, while chair at the University of Glasgow, Smiths lecture subjects, in order of preference, were natural theology, ethics, jurisprudence, and economics, according to John Millar, Smiths pupil at the time. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith wrote: How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it..
(later in article)
Smith used numerate economics not just to explain production of pins or differences in pay between butchers and hangmen, but to address some of the most pressing political issues of the day. In the fourth book of The Wealth of Nations—published, remember, in 1776—Smith told Great Britain that its American colonies were not worth the cost of keeping. His reasoning about the excessively high cost of British imperialism is worth repeating, both to show Smith at his numerate best and to show that simple, clear economics can lead to radical conclusions:
(bellow quote from Adam Smith:)
A great empire has been established for the sole purpose of raising up a nation of customers who should be obliged to buy from the shops of our different producers all the goods with which these could SUPPLY them. For the sake of that little enhancement of price which this MONOPOLY might afford our producers, the home-consumers have been burdened with the whole expense of maintaining and defending that empire. For this purpose, and for this purpose only, in the two last wars, more than a hundred and seventy millions [in pounds] has been contracted over and above all that had been expended for the same purpose in former wars. The interest of this debt alone is not only greater than the whole extraordinary profit, which, it ever could be pretended, was made by the monopoly of the colony trade, but than the whole value of that trade, or than the whole value of the goods, which at an average have been annually exported to the colonies.
What Is This "Free Market" We Keep Hearing About?
By Tom Mullen
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=161
As President Obama and his pet Congress continue their crusade to expand the reach of government into our lives, "conventional wisdom" continues to tell us that socialized medicine, rampant wealth redistribution, and government control over one industry after another is "necessary" because of the supposed failure of the free market to adequately address the needs of society. The way the "free market" is characterized by politicians and media pundits, it is not surprising that most Americans seem to regard it as some sort of special interest group (Mr. Undersecretary, the gentlemen from the free market are here to see you). Doubtless, when most Americans hear the words "free market," they picture the CEOs of Detroit automakers flying in on corporate jets or Wall Street financiers busy mastering the universe. This mischaracterization of the free market is ironic, seeing as both of these groups have recently sought and obtained capital from people who were not free to refuse (taxpayers).
So, before trying to ascertain whether or not the free market has failed society, it is necessary to define exactly what it is. This is not so much difficult as it is inconvenient for those who either wish to exert control over our lives or who wish to be controlled by those that they believe can offer them security in exchange for their liberty - even if it means destroying liberty for everyone. For both of these groups, the "free market" is something that must be characterized as something that it is not. To recognize it for what it is would both threaten their own ability to justify their positions and concede to their victims that what they advocate is in fact abject slavery. Neither result is palatable to opponents of the free market, so gibberish is necessary for them from both a moral and practical perspective..
2. The reader should avoid confusing private companies developing weapons for the government with "the free market." .....Since the buyers of their products do so involuntarily (taxes), the development of new weapons and subsequent sale of them to the government has nothing to do with a free market.
Loading...
1:18
ADAM SMITHby maoplaza2531,339 views
um no, the invisble hand has been misunderstood not exagurated. It in the wealth of nations is ment to be a defence against protectionism, claiming that people will invest domestically rather than have money leave the community or nation. If you can't even read the book the next best thing you can do is read the quote from the book.
Wouldn't it just be convenient for your position if it was over exagurated that than misunderstood? I think so.
Think im lieing? listen to democrat god chomsky
MirageScience 1 month ago