Smith argued that the self interest of merchants was a positive market force.
He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.In other words, in every deal that is freely struck, both parties benefit. If the price of a loaf of bread is the price that you will buy it at, you are, by definition, not being taken advantage of. The couple of dollars is worth less to you, than the time, expertise and labor it would take to gather the ingredients and make it yourself. This one concept needs to be taught much, much more than it is.
Smith also talked (at great lengths) on the benefits of division of labor. He also writes (again at great length) at how attempts to put less precious metal in coins, simply leads to inflated prices. Both of these concepts are important, but they're pretty well absorbed into financial discourse.
One point he made that I'd never heard before is that the size of a market, alone, can increase value throughout. The more potential customers a product has, the easier it is for a seller to find a good price to sell at. And the more sellers a customer has, the better the chance of finding a better price to buy at. He suggests, for example, that the difficulty of travel is responsible for Africa's relative poverty.
A difficult read, and perhaps one that would work better in summaries. But if Smith hadn't written 'A Wealth of Nations' would we know as much as we do today?
No comments:
Post a Comment