This is from a talk I gave a little over a year ago at an Adam Smith Conference hosted at Mercer University.
There is a
wealth of literature dedicated to the so-called “Adam Smith Problem” which
postulates that the Theory of Moral Sentiments is incompatible with the Inquiry
into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations because the former is
based in moral sympathy while the latter is based in self-interest. I would
like to dissent from this view, and provide a possible way to bridge the gap
between Adam Smith’s two most famous works. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments,
Adam Smith explores the strong human propensity toward perfection. This drive
towards perfection is one of the strongest forces that influence man. People
are fascinated with trinkets and toys that work with the highest degree of
precision. They are drawn to the impeccable consistency of such devises, and
often admire them as much for their perfect execution as for the small
conveniences they bring to the owner. In much the same way that people are
drawn to these perfectly functioning gadgets, they are drawn to the mechanisms
of the marketplace. These mechanisms can help to satiate a drive which Smith
speaks of in the TMS—the need for people to understand and be understood by
others. This drive presents a problem when people, in general, have vastly
different, often irreconcilable, methods of valuation. One way to solve this
problem is to make everyone speak the same language. Money, which objectively
communicates subjective value, can be this common link. Through the perfectly
harmonic forces of Supply and Demand, and with the language of the Market that
is the money system, complete strangers can effectively communicate their
desires and work for the happiness of each other. One way that the “Adam Smith
Problem” can be solved is by realizing that people admire the beauty of the
marketplace because it, without the supervision of any central power, works
like clockwork.
In Part IV
of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith highlights the kinds of perfection
that people seek in their lives. According to Smith, “The utility of any object…pleases
the master by perpetually suggesting to him the pleasure or conveniency which
it is fitted to promote” (TMS 179). This is an important distinction that Smith
makes in Part IV: what pleases the master of an object is the suggestion of conveniency—not
necessarily the conveniency itself. People marvel when an object seems
perfectly fitted to its intended purpose—“that this fitness, this happy
contrivance of any production of art, should often be more valued, than the
very end for which it was intended” (TMS 179). Smith gives various examples of
this. For instance, “a watch…that falls behind above two minutes in a day, is
despised by one curious in watches. He sells it perhaps for a couple of
guineas, and purchases another at fifty, which will not lose above a minute in
a fortnight…But the person so nice with regard to this machine, will not always
be found either more scrupulously punctual than other men, or more anxiously
concerned upon any other account, to know precisely what time of day it is.
What interests him is not so much the attainment of this piece of knowledge, as
the perfection of the machine which serves to attain it” (TMS 180).
This same concept can be
illustrated in the modern era—with me as a prime example. Since for the past
couple years, I have been the proud owner of an iPhone 4S. The week before I
got this smart phone, I told myself that I would never need a smart phone. I
had an old fashioned cell phone, and that was perfectly fine by me. I was determined
to not get sucked in to the smart phone craze. The week after I got it,
however, I realized that I had, in
fact, been completely sucked in—I could barely live without it. I am obsessed
with this little thing. It can do just about anything. I can text, send emails,
surf the web, watch videos, listen to music, catch the news, and call anyone I
want—and it fits in my pocket! What an amazing machine! But why this obsession?
Why do I feel so desperately attached to this device of which I had no earlier
need? It’s because I’m fascinated with the beauty and simplicity with which it
works. It would be no great hardship to wait until I get to my laptop to check
my emails (or look at funny pictures on the internet) but the idea that I can
do this whenever I want is awe-inducing. With only four buttons and a touch
screen, I possess all knowledge known to man.
So how does my little iPhone
obsession tie into Adam Smith? For that, we must inquire into the nature and
causes of the wealth of nations. In Book I of this text, Smith lays out the
basic laws of Supply and Demand. The consistency with which these forces work
together to place goods in their most highly valued uses is just as
awe-inducing as the capabilities of my phone—and unlike my phone, the forces of
the marketplace need no central human force to perpetuate itself. Instead, it
is through human interaction and the efficiency of the division of labor that
it is possible to create something like an iPhone at a price that people can
afford. People come together from all over the world to join perfectly the
pieces of the puzzle necessary to produce a phone. Highly specialized people in
extremely different areas of work are required to come together in a cohesive
way to make one unique product. One needs miners to obtain the metals and other
raw materials, plastics makers to form the casing, and glass makers for the
screen. Then one needs engineers, electricians and programmers to make the
phone run. After that, one needs artists and designers to make the phone
visually, and audibly pleasing. Then one must employ social scientists to run
beta tests on customers to make sure it is a product that people will actually
want to buy. Then, one needs a full marketing team that is able to communicate
to the entire consumer base that the product is ready for sale and worth
purchasing. One needs sign producers, script writers, and actors to convey this
message to the public. One needs truck drivers to bring the finished phones to
all the stores, and finally retail workers to go through the transaction
process with me so that at last I can have the
whole world in my hands. This complex, even miraculous chain of events
seems impossible, but somehow, all these strangers come together perfectly,
like the components of a watch, to bring me this amazing device for a couple
hundred bucks.
Smith explains why societies tend
to give rise to the division of labor. Different people from all over the world
come together, each providing a small specialized service which highlights the
special comparative advantage which that person possesses. By specializing and
habituating one’s work, one can become highly efficient and differentiated from
others, and therefore more highly valued. This increase in personal value
incentivizes people to become even more specialized in their work to
distinguish themselves as the most productive in their individualized line of
work. Once people have honed these individual talents, they are able to
exchange the result of their labor for a profit. The more highly specialized
people are, the more productive they become, and the more they gain from their
production. In this way, the tendency to become more and more efficient and
productive is a self-perpetuating cycle.
Smith believes that this comes
about due to a natural sociability in man. “This division of labour, from which
so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human
wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives
occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual consequence of a
certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility;
the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another” (WN 25).
This same propensity of man is discussed in Smith’s Theory of Moral
Sentiments, although the exchange is of emotions—not goods and services. In
this text, Smith highlights that “we often derive sorrow from the sorrow of
others” (TMS 9), but also that “nothing pleases us more than to observe in
other men a fellow-feeling with all the emotions of our own breast; nor are we
ever so much shocked as by the appearance of the contrary” (TMS 13).
Although emotions are the medium of
exchange in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith describes a very different
currency in the Wealth of Nations. The latter also describes the social nature
of man from a different perspective—analyzing the transactions of goods and
services rather than the transactions of emotions. Even though they may sound
terribly different, they actually share great similarity. Through the mutual
sympathy that exists in human nature, people desire to communicate the subjective
value of experiences using emotions just as they communicate the subjective
value of goods and services using money in the marketplace. When a person shows
happiness or sadness, he is expressing a sense of his idea of value. When one’s
sport team wins, and a person feels happiness, the shared joy of others
reinforces his sense of value in that victory and elevates his joy. When a
loved-one dies, and a person feels sorrow, the sympathy of others validates the
value of her loss and dampens her sorrow. The transactions of goods and
services in the marketplace convey very similar information. The market allows
people to communicate their subjective value judgments to everyone else. With
the use of money and the price system, one can instantly know what the relative
value is of a certain good or service as compared to all other goods and
services. When given the price of an object, one can instantly place that object
within one’s frame of reference in terms that one can understand. After having
been told that my iPhone cost about two hundred dollars, I could place the
iPhone within my frame of reference and understand what it was worth in my own
subjective terms—about 10 dinner dates with my girlfriend (let’s just say I’m
thrifty!) or 20 trips to the movie theatre, or 40 runs to McDonalds, or 80
loads of laundry.
We may solve the Adam Smith Problem
if we appreciate that many of the same psychological mechanisms are at work in
both The Theory of Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations. People have a
natural tendency to seek perfection—perfection in the objects they possess,
perfection in communication and social interactions, and perfection in the
proper allocation of resources. Humanity has learned that in order to approach
perfection, people must work together within the marketplace. In order to
produce anything of value, people are highly dependent on the specialized
contributions of others. All people “truck, barter, and trade” within the
marketplace, allowing humanity to exploit the comparative advantages of every
individual. Just as people trade
sympathies of subjective value in the emotional marketplace, they trade goods
and services of subjective value in the economic marketplace. Societies use
money to objectively communicate subjective value judgments. Without any
central oversight, these forces of the marketplace bring mankind as close as
possible to awe-inducing, perfect efficiency. Through his writings, Smith
attempts to communicate that the market is a beautiful structure of spontaneous
order that really does work like clockwork.
Just some thoughts. I hope you enjoyed it.
Have a magical day!
No comments :
Post a Comment