On the micro level, the idea doesn't hold up at all. Just imagine living in a relationship with other human beings in one family household. If the husband always acts only for his own self interest, how exactly will that serve the interests of the family? How does the family benefit if dad spends the entire month's food budget on a trip to Las Vegas? The same analysis holds for the wife, and the same holds for each child.
The one way in which Smith's theory might apply to a family is if each member of the family recognizes that part of his/her self interest is the health and survival of the family unit. If Dad recognizes that going to Las Vegas will cause the family hardship, and is sufficiently committed to the family that he views family hardship as contrary to his self interest, he won't take the trip.
It seems to me that need to recognize that the health of the larger unit is part of the self interest of the individual is the key to Smith's theory. Without that recognition, I think Smith's theory turns out to be false in many circumstances. With that recognition, however, Smith's theory holds up much more frequently. But it still suffers from failure to recognize that individuals do not, in fact, follow what is in their self interest, they only follow what they perceive to be in their self interest. If their perception is wrong, if they stink at understanding their own self interest, they will not produce what is good for all of us.
So how in the hell does Adam Smith manage to hold the allegiance of so many smart, educated people? Easy. There are two parts to that answer:
1. Smith's Followers Are Among Those Who Misperceive Their Own Self Interest
Many Smith followers are the very people who cannot understand how their own interests are affected by the interests of others. They are the ones that cannot see how a massive increase in poverty in their own country will be bad for them, even though they have millions upon millions of dollars. They are the ones who think that self interest is measured only in the short term, and only in terms of $$ and power.
2. Smith's Followers Frequently Don't Understand Smith
As JK Galbraith could have told you, many Smith lovers simply find his theory a convenient cover for being as selfishly greedy as they feel like being. They are uninterested in what Smith actually thought, only in how they can act as selfishly as possible and still claim to be doing good for the rest of us.
Smith did not write in a vacuum of time, and Smith did not speak as unqualifiedly as he is portrayed as having spoken.
Here, for example, is one author's summary of the explicit and implicit limits on Smith's theory:
Classical free market economic theory originated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo in the early days of the Industrial Revolution (late 1700s, early 1800s). It was intended to apply under certain conditions and certain conditions only, namely:
(1) All business was small-to-medium sized and entrepreneurial (not corporate). Mostly the people who ran the business owned the business, and financed it with their own capital, or capital raised in partnership with others (1). There were stock exchanges, but corporations (joint stock companies) were rare and required a special act of parliament, so there were few of them listed (2).
(2) The free market was defined as a market of potentially unlimited numbers of these small/medium sized businesses, competing on a more or less equal footing, in a market which newcomers could freely enter, and in which none could control prices.
(3) The economy was national; capital must not flow freely across national borders or the theory did not hold (Ricardo)(5).
(4) The market had to be supervised by a sovereign government which (a) protected the public interest (b) made sure all businesses played by the rules (c) provided a stable currency, and (d) ran public utilities, which were regarded as not profitable for private enterprise.
Here's a concrete example of limitations in Smith's The Wealth of Nations (emphasis added):
...every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. 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. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.
How many people leave out that FREQUENTLY qualifier? How many people leave out the fact that he talked about ANNUAL REVENUE as an equivalent of the greater good? How many people are aware of Smith's assumption that people prefer support of domestic industry to that of foreign industry?
Probably just as important, how many people realize:
--Smith was deeply religious, and believed that God Himself had endowed human beings with such character that they would produce good simply by following their self interest?
--Smith described a world in which most business, especially domestic business, was not corporate, but sole proprietors, with no distance between ownership and management, and no means of limiting the personal liability of the owner?
--Smith described a world in which it was quite difficult for capital to travel from one nation to another, and barriers of physical distance virtually precluded the import of goods and services which were already available locally?
JK Galbraith realized those things. Milton Friedman....probably not.
No comments:
Post a Comment