Another Inaccurate Claim About Adam Smith and Charles Darwin

W.C. Hayward, Editor of the Blog, Undismalization (‘towards a rational, constructive, non-ideological dialogue on economics and pubic policy') HERE
writes (14 July):

“The Flaws of Quasi-Darwinist Arguments for a Pure Laissez-Faire System”

“Adam Smith, having published The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in which the theory of “the invisible hand” first appears, precisely a century before Darwin’s Origin of the Species, created a model involving a “selection process” in the realm of commerce that could be said, from an analogous perspective, to anticipate Darwin’s theory of natural selection in the realm of biology.”

“Since Darwin, however, links between laissez-faire and Darwinist thinking have appeared frequently, at least in popular parlance, with the survival-of-the-fittest concept supporting the premise that a pure laissez-faire system is more efficient because it is more natural.”

Comment
Adam Smith did not have a ‘theory of an invisible hand’ in his Moral Sentiments (nor anywhere else). Whether such a non-existent theory by analogy ‘anticipated’ Charles Darwin’s theory of ‘natural selection in the realm of biology’ is also suspect.

As is ‘at least in popular parlance, with the survival-of-the-fittest concept supporting the premise that a pure laissez-faire system is more efficient because it is more natural.”

Natural selection is by definition ‘natural’, but ‘laissez-faire’ is certainly not, at least in the common understanding of being ‘natural’. Laissez-faire is anything but ‘natural’. Like Hobbes’s ‘state of war’ of ‘all against all’, laissez faire has never existed, anywhere on the planet throughout the history of the human race, at least as far as we can judge, even deep into pre-history; it certainly left no traces found by anthropology, so far.

Adam Smith was quite critical of Dr Quesnay , the French economiste, whom he admired so much, on the subject of what is often taken to be about laissez-faire (though Smith, familiar with the term laissez-faire never used the term at all):

“Some speculative physicians seem to have imagined that the health of the human body could be preserved only by a certain precise regimen of diet and exercise, of which every, the smallest, violation necessarily occasioned some degree of disease or disorder proportioned to the degree of the violation. Experience, however, would seem to show that the human body frequently preserves, to all appearances at least, the most perfect state of health under a vast variety of different regimens; even under some which are generally believed to be very far from being perfectly wholesome. But the healthful state of the human body, it would seem, contains in itself some unknown principle of preservation, capable either of preventing or of correcting, in many respects, the bad effects even of a very faulty regimen. Mr. Quesnai, who was himself a physician, and a very speculative physician, seems to have entertained a notion of the same kind concerning the political body, and to have imagined that it would thrive and prosper only under a certain precise regimen, the exact regimen of perfect liberty and perfect justice. He seems not to have considered that, in the political body, the natural effort which every man is continually making to better his own condition is a principle of preservation capable of preventing and correcting, in many respects, the bad effects of a political œconomy, in some degree, both partial and oppressive. Such a political œconomy, though it no doubt retards more or less, is not always capable of stopping altogether the natural progress of a nation towards wealth and prosperity, and still less of making it go backwards. If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could ever have prospered. In the political body, however, the wisdom of nature has fortunately made ample provision for remedying many of the bad effects of the folly and injustice of man, in the same manner as it has done in the natural body for remedying those of his sloth and intemperance.”
(WN IV.ix.28: 674-5)

What Smith is saying is that an economy can tolerate quite severe distortions in its purity of function without collapsing into disaster and that if a society, as most were and are, was supposed not to prosper unless if enjoyed ‘perfect liberty and perfect justice’ the evidence of the history human societies contradicts the assertion because ‘there is not a nation in the world which could ever have prospered’.

In short, perfect liberty and perfect justice – about as close as we can get to what now passes for laissez-faire – does not support “the premise that a pure laissez-faire system is more efficient because it is more natural”. It isn’t natural; indeed it would be most unusual, even unnatural, should laissez faire be established anywhere and anytime.

Attempts to link laissez-faire to Darwin’s natural selection, of which there has been a spate of them recently, falls at the first essential hurdle of empirical evidence.

The rest of W.C. Hayward’s piece makes an interesting case about the current condition in the USA (follow the link to see how much of it you agree with), but that is separate from his assertions about Darwin’s and Smith’s ideas.

Darwin’s books and notes form a formidable body of evidence for natural selection (he didn’t get everything quite right, but he took major steps forward before the world knew anything about inheritance, genetics and the genome).

Attempts to forge a link with Darwin and Adam Smith on the grounds quoted above ultimately fail because they create so-called analogies with their ideas, mostly fanciful.

There is a connection however; both took an evolutionary approach to change and in a future post I shall discuss the forms that they took.

Too Clever By Half on Smith and Darwin

Nitish Grover (FCA, AICPA Intl Associate) writes (13 July) in the Blog of the Gersham, Lehrman Group (‘Intelligently connecting institutions and expertise’) HERE, a piece on “The Invisible Hand, Trumped by Darwin” in the New York Times (discussed on Lost Legacy yesterday):

Nitish Grover writes a witty (speaking loosely) piece to the theme: “Charles Darwin, Adam Smith, Accounting and Financial Rules”. He gives an 8-step analysis, which is more than tendentious in my view.

“1.The invisible hand has always been there in accounting and in the development of financial products.”

Nitish does not explain how ‘an invisible hand’ manifests itself in accountancy (but then Adam Smith only mentioned it once in Wealth Of Nations where it is clearly a metaphor not an actual entity.]

“2. Natural selection (Darwin) speaks of adaptability and change. The invisible hand refers to a population of businessmen doing the right thing for a selfish motive.”

[Hold it! Where does Adam Smith speak of ‘selfish motives’ having anything to do with The Metaphor of ‘an invisible hand’? He does no such thing, which leads me to ask if Nitish has read Wealth Of Nations or has relied merely on a summary of modern interpretations, plus a couple of Hollywood films (‘Wall Street’, ‘Beautiful Mind’, and perhaps those scriptwriters influenced by Ayn Rand).

The traders mentioned in connection with The Metaphor were those who were risk averse to sending their capital across to the British colonies in North America (the Atlantic was dangerous to small ships, the people they dealt with in the colonies were not known to them, the local courts were an unknown element, though based on British Law, and their goods were out of their sight). Consequently, they preferred to invest locally, which on the arithmetic of the whole is the sum of its parts, each risk averse trade increased local investment larger than it would be if these traders joined the non-risk averse traders who did business in the colonies. How is risk-averse behaviour ‘selfish’?]

”3. While the invisible hand and the selfish motive are driven by greed the process of natural selection is slower and driven by the environment.”

[It gets worse! Now they are driven by ‘greed’. Nitish confuses Adam Smith with Bernard Mandeville (1724) and the ‘Fable of the Bees’, a common enough misattribution to Smith who regarded Mandeville as ‘licentious) (see his Moral Sentiments, 1759). Nobody who reads Wealth Of Nations would make that elementary mistake.]

“4. While the invisible hand has a short term perspective the natural selection is more strategy driven.”

[The Metaphor has no perspective at all – it's imaginary, not real. Darwin did not instill ‘strategy’ into natural selection; individual adaptations can develop to a series of short-term events – a regular food declines, alternatives are tried by some individuals, some new habits become more regular, which may solve one problem – survival – but may induce others that become terminal. Natural selection works on the individual and does not have foresight, nor does it always and inevitably ‘progress’ (former sea creatures can evolve into land creatures, and much later return to the sea).

Hominids that failed to adapt to the growing nutrition needs of a growing brain, remained with smaller brains, lived for a million years or more as a species and then died out as the environment changed or bigger brained hominids out competed them. Has Nitish actually read Darwin? Does he understand Darwin’s theory of natural selection? He hasn’t read Smith and I suspect he hasn’t read Darwin either.]

5. Accounting standards have evolved more over a period of natural selection and due process (Darwin).

[Economic behaviour has also evolved over long periods. Exchange behaviours did not suddenly turn into bargaining behaviour. They went through a series of changes from ‘gift behaviour’, through voluntary reciprocation (the ‘quasi-bargain’), reciprocation enforced by sanctions, to bargaining proper (‘If you give me X then I will give you ‘Y’ – or the simultaneous exchange). This process is no different than that of ‘accounting standards’, except that the evolution of bargaining took much longer, measured in millions of years, not just millennia – has Nitish ever read any anthropology?]

Nitish's items 6 thru 7 and 8 are meaningless. I said his article was ‘witty’ but perhaps it was more ‘clever’ than witty, but its cleverness was more entertaining than instructive.

[Disclaimer: the Gersham, Lehrman Group disclaim any responsibility for the contents of its authors' articles]