4 ms·
You are conflating self-interest with greed. That is a great mistake in trying to understand Adam Smith. They are not the same thing. Values, ethics, morals...
by pfortuny 8y ago
You are conflating self-interest with greed. That is a great mistake in trying to understand Adam Smith. They are not the same thing.
Values, ethics, morals... are part of self-inrerst for lots of people.
- dbingham 8y agoSure, you could argue that, and maybe Adam Smith was at the time. It's been a long time since I've read him, I'd have to go back and re-read it to decide to what degree I think he's making that argument. But that is not how most people understand self interest in an economic context and that is not how Adam Smith is mostly wielded today (see the post I'm responding to for an example). Most people understand "self interest" to be "financial self interest" of the sort that supposedly is the primary driver of the modern economic idea of the "rational self interested person" who operates in markets. Further, the vast majority of stock corporations have no values, ethics, or morals. They have only the maximization of stock holder value -- which is to say: greed. We know this from piles and piles of data on corporate behavior. People and organizations of people are very different creatures and behave in very different ways.
- pfortuny 8y agoOf course: that is why Adam Smith speaks of people and not corporations. And I was speaking of people as well. Corporations are a different subject matter.
- dbingham 8y agoFair enough. However, the context of this discussion -- and the modern economic context -- is made up primarily of corporate actors. Which is one more reason why the application of Adam's philosophy doesn't make sense.
- ionised 8y agoCareful, Friedman and Hayek basically took Smith's theories warped it beyond recognition, and it is these two men that most of western economics has been tirelessly focused on this last few decades. Believing that humans are merely information processors acting at all times only in their 'rational self-interest' is an incredibly narrow and simplistic view of humanity.
- pfortuny 8y agoWell, exactly, that is in another way, what I am stating: rational self interest is inherently unmeasurable because "rationality" is not something that can be objectively counted. So at any time one should assume that people act in their "self-interest": what at the time they deem "better" (in whatever their will decides is "better" at that point). I am not arguing that people never change or never act wrongly or never do things harmful to themselves. I am arguing that if one wants to "objectivize" their actions then one should assume that their decisions show their interests and their values at each time.
- wiz21c 8y agoI like your answer. But you say : "are part of self interest". In which way ? What puts self interest above those traits to make it encompass them ? 'cos I'd argue that if values, morals, ethics are part of self interest, then self interest is not much more than "personality". If so, self interest is not a concept that is very useful in itself... (no I didn't read A.Smith)
- perfmode 8y agothen it’s practically a tautology
- boomlinde 8y agoEvidently not to the extent that we can rely on self-interest as a viable regulatory mechanism.