A Stock Tipper Who Doesn't Understand Economics
From the Department of So Wrong; it’s not worthy of comment:
“While I agree with many of Stein's observations in the column, I think he may be missing one of the cardinal rules of economics: Adam Smith's invisible hand, which states that individuals create the greatest benefit for society through the selfish pursuit of personal gain.”
This was written in: ‘Ben Stein on hedge funds' by Zac Bissonnette in ‘AOL money & finance Bloggingstocks’, ( 26 December) clearly a stock tipper that must be avoided.
“While I agree with many of Stein's observations in the column, I think he may be missing one of the cardinal rules of economics: Adam Smith's invisible hand, which states that individuals create the greatest benefit for society through the selfish pursuit of personal gain.”
This was written in: ‘Ben Stein on hedge funds' by Zac Bissonnette in ‘AOL money & finance Bloggingstocks’, ( 26 December) clearly a stock tipper that must be avoided.
posted by Gavin Kennedy at 12:55 PM
6 Comments:
Hi,
Zac Bissonnette here, thanks for the comment on my post about Ben Stein...while you may disagree with the precise wording, I think that's a pretty good summary of the invisible hand. Here it is direct from the man himself:
"...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."
Can you explain your beef with what I was saying?
Thanks,
Zac
Thank you for your comments. I shall try to answer briefly.
Smith did not have a belief in ‘an invisible hand’ other than as a metaphor. The precise context of his single reference in Wealth of Nations to ‘an invisible hand’ is about human motivations having unintended consequences. It had nothing to do with his theory of markets (‘natural and market prices, supply and ‘effectual demand’, etc.,) fully discussed in Book I of Wealth of Nations.
His Book IV reference is to the risk aversion of some merchants to sending their capital abroad to import goods for sale in Britain or to invest in the ‘carrying trade’ (shipping, etc.,).
Because they did this (fear of piracy, fraud and theft), they invested locally and this meant that their individual annual revenues when aggregated together created larger annual revenues locally than it would otherwise if they had dispersed their scarce capitals abroad.
In short, the sum of their individual actions caused the whole to be larger than it would otherwise have been if their capitals had been dispersed, or, to express it another way (Smith was highly qualified in mathematics) he stated the simple arithmetical rule than the whole is the sum of its individual parts.
Hi is metaphor (used by many before and contemproary with him, e.g., Sakespeare in Macbeth, 3.2 and Defoe in Moll Falnders, has morphed into the myth of a ‘law’, ‘theory’, even ‘theorem’ of Adam Smith. It was and is none of these.
Neoclassical economics, emanating from Chicago is responsible for the mistaken elevation of a metaphor into a ‘cardinal rule of economics’.
Should you wish to proceed further with your enquiries, please read the three occasions only in which Smith refers to this metaphor, once in his History of Astronomy, referring to pagan superstition about the ‘invisible hand of Jupiter’ (the Roman god not the planet); once in his Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS IV.I.10: p 184) and once in Wealth of Nations (WN IV.ii.9: p 456). On no occasion is he talking about markets or economics. His subject, his ‘principle’, is human motivation.
I have no ‘beef’ about this; I am only interested in stating Smith’s legacy as he intended it to be taken by posterity. Smith was a careful writer – he wrote and lectured about the use of metaphors (Lectures in Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, 1763) - and did not express himself carelessly.
If you scroll down the Blog you will find many instances in which I criticise those who, often unknowingly, ascribe to Smith views he did not hold or express, and who attribute to him ‘theories’ he did not advance.
The myth of ‘the’ invisible hand and its being ‘cardinal’ to his political economy is just that. If people wish to advance a notion that markets are ‘mysterious’ or ‘magical’ that is their prerogative; when they attribute such nonsense to Adam Smith they are vulnerable to correction.
I hold no animosity towards you whatsoever – we would probably get on just fine in a long conversation. If my tone caused you offence, then I apologise unreservedly – it was not intended.
Hi,
Thanks for the response...Don't worry, you didn't offend me at all! I'm glad when our stuff can inspire passionate responses! While you are obviously far more of an Adam Smith expert than I am, I am certainly aware that he saw himself as a moral philosopher rather than as an economist as he is perceived now.
However, the invisible hand metaphor is very frequently used by proponents of free markets to explain why capitalism is good. That was the point I was trying to make. If people want to pay what appear to be outrageous fees to a hedge fund manager, why shouldn't they...I'm a big believer in the idea of "voluntary trade creates wealth."
And the quote from Smith that I showed you in my response- "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," I think absolutely speaks to the invisible hand metaphor, even though it is not stated explicitly there. It's the same idea. Voluntary trade creates wealth.
And I'm sure you intended no animosity but calling me a "stocktipper to be avoided" and that I "don't understand economics" is a little harsh. But it's cool. I'm glad you responded and you are very knowledgable. Thanks a lot for your time. Feel free to email me anytime at TeenMoney@gmail.com
Best always,
Zac
2008真情寫真aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室080影音視訊聊天室38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室520情色聊天室QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族080上班族聊天室6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片
本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區momokoko同學會視訊kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風 成人 論壇kiss文學區taiwankiss文學區
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment
<< Home