4 ms·
Sure, 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 wha
by dbingham 8y ago
Sure, 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.