8 ms·

"I'm not subservient to helping cities-- I'm going to cities because of my own interests, and I absolutely reject any guilt to bringing down those cities." Thi

"I'm not subservient to helping cities-- I'm going to cities because of my own interests, and I absolutely reject any guilt to bringing down those cities." This dogma has penetrated very, very deep amongst techies. The invisible hand seems to be a drop-in replacement for any reflexion about morality for some.

firstOrder 12y ago
Dogma has penetrated very deep. If you read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", the invisible hand is something that intervenes in markets to prevent free trade among merchants from different nations. Nowadays, 99% of the time people use his term the exact opposite way. They say it is a hand that gently guides merchants from different nations to trade with one another within a free market, and that such thing. They have twisted his term to mean the exact opposite of how Smith intended it.
- zo1 12y ago
  Perhaps the definition changed because the invisible hand he described isn't so invisible. It's usually government intervention / foreign trade policy, and it's anything but invisible!
- baddox 12y ago
  > If you read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", the invisible hand is something that intervenes in markets to prevent free trade among merchants from different nations. I don't see how that's the opposite interpretation from the modern usage. It just seems like the modern usage is a generalization of Smith's usage. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith seems to be saying that an individual favoring domestic industry over foreign industry for purely personal gain tends to be good for domestic industry and society, and perhaps even for foreign industry. The generalized interpretation that people use today is that individuals seeking purely personal gain can result in a market that self-regulates and benefits society. What is the contradiction you're referring to? Also, in The Wealth of Nations, Smith does describe the more general concept of market self-regulation, though in that section he does not use the phrase "invisible hand." In his earlier book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," Smith uses the phrase "invisible hand" to refer to the phenomenon that rich people tend to provide livelihoods to the people working for them, not out of altruism, but for personal gain, which is another special case of the general concept of market self-regulation. Disclaimer: I haven't actually read Smith straight through. I've just read various articles about Smith, and excerpts of his work. I might be missing a lot of context (and please inform me if that's the case), although my general impression of his usage of this phrase is in line with Wikipedia's summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand.
- djokkataja 12y ago
  No, Smith used the term "invisible hand" more generically to describe how the actions of individuals when optimizing for themselves can produce outcomes that may be optimal for greater purposes. In The Wealth of Nations, he uses it to refer to the way in which the actions of domestic businessmen support domestic industry in the best possible way (as though orchestrated by an invisible hand).[1] In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith says that the actions of the wealthy produce beneficial effects for all of society, as though guided by an invisible hand. This idea is commonly referred to as the "trickle-down effect" today.[2] In modern economics the term is mostly used to refer to the way in which markets tend to self-regulate,[3] and it's known as THE invisible hand, which is a bit unfortunate since it's such a vague metaphor that it can easily be used to refer to almost any gestalt concept. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations#Book_IV:_Of_Systems_of_political_Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations#Book_IV:... "As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; 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." (Book 4, Chapter 2) [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#Other_uses_of_the_phrase_by_Smith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#Other_uses_of_t... "The rich … consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species." [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
zo1 12y ago
Because the beauty of a self-organizing system with emergent properties based on each agent's personal values shouldn't be appealing to a "techy"?
- mpyne 12y ago
  It's just as appealing as watching self-organizing behavior in ants. But I'm not an ant or a honeybee and I see no reason to think of my fellow humans as worker drones as opposed to a more familial social patterning. Even the elephants, lions and wolves can do that much...
baddox 12y ago
Are you suggesting some moral theory by which wealthy/educated/successful people ought move to certain cities in order to improve those cities?
- superbaconman 12y ago
  It's an economic theory right? Go to a shit town buy up houses, fix them up, get some people who can pay the higher rent jobs in that town, and repeat. Think about who really wins in silicon valley. Its the property owners, and they just keep raising rent. People have a way better chance of making money through building houses and influencing migration patterns of skilled labor than building the next Facebook. Life's a game that you can play in many different ways. Don't box yourself in. :)
- seanflyon 12y ago
  That's the problem. Wealth people improve a city, which makes it a more desirable place to live which drives up cost of living, which drives out the poor people that lived there before.
prodigal_erik 12y ago
I endured high school as a nerd. The city and state had years to convince me I could find respect, camaraderie, and love if I chose to stay, but instead they demonstrated how freaks would be treated and that nobody had my back. I have no loyalty for the place or the people.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  To be fair, this is also a function of the immaturity, immense peer pressure, and monolithic idea of social acceptability that exist at the high school level. After high school (whether in college or as young adults living on our own), people tend to be more open-minded, plus we are better able to choose our own peer groups. So we tend to find more acceptance. Sure, some cities may have a more tolerant regard for certain groups (which is actually likely more related to higher concentrations of those groups in the city), however, most of our acceptance comes from the fact that we are no longer in the immense social conformity pressure cooker that is high school in most towns.

firstOrder 12y ago

Dogma has penetrated very deep. If you read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", the invisible hand is something that intervenes in markets to prevent free trade among merchants from different nations. Nowadays, 99% of the time people use his term the exact opposite way. They say it is a hand that gently guides merchants from different nations to trade with one another within a free market, and that such thing. They have twisted his term to mean the exact opposite of how Smith intended it.

zo1 12y ago
Perhaps the definition changed because the invisible hand he described isn't so invisible. It's usually government intervention / foreign trade policy, and it's anything but invisible!
baddox 12y ago
> If you read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", the invisible hand is something that intervenes in markets to prevent free trade among merchants from different nations. I don't see how that's the opposite interpretation from the modern usage. It just seems like the modern usage is a generalization of Smith's usage. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith seems to be saying that an individual favoring domestic industry over foreign industry for purely personal gain tends to be good for domestic industry and society, and perhaps even for foreign industry. The generalized interpretation that people use today is that individuals seeking purely personal gain can result in a market that self-regulates and benefits society. What is the contradiction you're referring to? Also, in The Wealth of Nations, Smith does describe the more general concept of market self-regulation, though in that section he does not use the phrase "invisible hand." In his earlier book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," Smith uses the phrase "invisible hand" to refer to the phenomenon that rich people tend to provide livelihoods to the people working for them, not out of altruism, but for personal gain, which is another special case of the general concept of market self-regulation. Disclaimer: I haven't actually read Smith straight through. I've just read various articles about Smith, and excerpts of his work. I might be missing a lot of context (and please inform me if that's the case), although my general impression of his usage of this phrase is in line with Wikipedia's summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand.
djokkataja 12y ago
No, Smith used the term "invisible hand" more generically to describe how the actions of individuals when optimizing for themselves can produce outcomes that may be optimal for greater purposes. In The Wealth of Nations, he uses it to refer to the way in which the actions of domestic businessmen support domestic industry in the best possible way (as though orchestrated by an invisible hand).[1] In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith says that the actions of the wealthy produce beneficial effects for all of society, as though guided by an invisible hand. This idea is commonly referred to as the "trickle-down effect" today.[2] In modern economics the term is mostly used to refer to the way in which markets tend to self-regulate,[3] and it's known as THE invisible hand, which is a bit unfortunate since it's such a vague metaphor that it can easily be used to refer to almost any gestalt concept. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations#Book_IV:_Of_Systems_of_political_Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations#Book_IV:... "As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; 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." (Book 4, Chapter 2) [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#Other_uses_of_the_phrase_by_Smith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#Other_uses_of_t... "The rich … consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species." [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand

zo1 12y ago

Because the beauty of a self-organizing system with emergent properties based on each agent's personal values shouldn't be appealing to a "techy"?

mpyne 12y ago
It's just as appealing as watching self-organizing behavior in ants. But I'm not an ant or a honeybee and I see no reason to think of my fellow humans as worker drones as opposed to a more familial social patterning. Even the elephants, lions and wolves can do that much...

baddox 12y ago

Are you suggesting some moral theory by which wealthy/educated/successful people ought move to certain cities in order to improve those cities?

superbaconman 12y ago
It's an economic theory right? Go to a shit town buy up houses, fix them up, get some people who can pay the higher rent jobs in that town, and repeat. Think about who really wins in silicon valley. Its the property owners, and they just keep raising rent. People have a way better chance of making money through building houses and influencing migration patterns of skilled labor than building the next Facebook. Life's a game that you can play in many different ways. Don't box yourself in. :)
seanflyon 12y ago
That's the problem. Wealth people improve a city, which makes it a more desirable place to live which drives up cost of living, which drives out the poor people that lived there before.

prodigal_erik 12y ago

I endured high school as a nerd. The city and state had years to convince me I could find respect, camaraderie, and love if I chose to stay, but instead they demonstrated how freaks would be treated and that nobody had my back. I have no loyalty for the place or the people.

unclebucknasty 12y ago
To be fair, this is also a function of the immaturity, immense peer pressure, and monolithic idea of social acceptability that exist at the high school level. After high school (whether in college or as young adults living on our own), people tend to be more open-minded, plus we are better able to choose our own peer groups. So we tend to find more acceptance. Sure, some cities may have a more tolerant regard for certain groups (which is actually likely more related to higher concentrations of those groups in the city), however, most of our acceptance comes from the fact that we are no longer in the immense social conformity pressure cooker that is high school in most towns.