The New York Times article"Nobel-winning economist looks beyond the invisible hand," (Oct. 30, page 12) misunderstands Adam Smith, who did not have a "theory of the invisible hand." This is an invention of modern academe.
Smith's used the metaphor of the invisible hand only once in Wealth of Nations. It was never a "theory," but was an illustration of how human motivations could have unintended consequences, which, in the case he was discussing, were, happily, benign consequences. He never made it a general rule that the "individual pursuit of self-interest promotes the greatest good for all."
The pursuit of self-interest also promotes unintended malign consequences. Merchants and manufacturers, wrote Smith, tend to promote monopolies and reductions in supply to raise prices against the interests of consumers. Self-interest does not automatically promote "the greatest good for all." It all depends on the circumstances; hence, Smith did not make the metaphor into a theory.
Anyway, the metaphor was originally Shakespeare's from Macbeth ("thy bloody and invisible hand").
The author of the article distinguishes between absolute and relative performance in the game of hockey. "Absolute" here means what everybody might do (if they are compelled somehow, but otherwise do not), and "relative" means what some individuals might choose to do because they value one outcome (safety) over another (winning).
The distinction is precisely Smith's point precisely: if everybody pursued their own self interest without detriment to anybody else's (a big "if" and one that never escaped Smith's attention) then by doing so everybody would promote "the greatest good for all."
But humans do not play the game this way, neither in society nor in hockey. Smith knew that and never concluded that they would. It may be that this is "the standard presumption in [modern] economics," but it never was a presumption of Smith's Wealth of Nations. So whatever Schelling went "beyond," it was not a turn away from Smith. Schelling's work, more correctly, was a return to Smith's approach.
Gavin Kennedy
Edinburgh, Scotland
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS