HISways USA, Inc.

A Comment on Adam Smith's Invisible Hand Metaphor and

In economics, the invisible hand is the term economists use to describe the self-regulating nature of the marketplace.[1]  The  invisible hand is a metaphor coined by the economist Adam Smith. Once in The Wealth of Nations [1776] and other writings, Smith tried to show that, in a free market, an individual pursuing his own good self-interest tends to also promote the good of his community as a whole through a principle that he called “the invisible hand.”

1. During his first Inaugural Address, George Washington said, “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand (emphases added) which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.  Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency…”  
2. Ludwig von Mises,  [b.1881 – d.1973] in Human Action (see note 3 at the bottom Wiki note), claims that Smith believed that the invisible hand was that of God. He did not mean this as a criticism, since he held that secular reasoning leads to similar conclusions.

Contrary to common misconceptions, Smith did not assert that all self-interested labour necessarily benefits society, or that all public goods are produced through self-interested labour. His proposal is merely that in a free market, people usually tend to produce goods desired by their neighbours. The tragedy of the commons is an example where self-interest tends to bring an unwanted result.

Moreover, a free market arguably provides numerous opportunities for maximizing one’s own profit at the (addictive)  expense (rather than for the benefit) of others. The tobacco industry is often cited as an example of this: the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products certainly brings a very good revenue, but the industry’s critics deny that the social benefits (the pleasures associated with smoking, the camaraderie, the feeling of doing something “cool”) can possibly outbalance the social costs.  Among the social costs of addictive behaviors typically affecting the individual, the family and the community are: increased health care costs, reduced life span, reduced productive earnings capacity and lost prosperity of the family.  All of those personal costs put stresses (i.e. divisive divorce stresses) on the social family unit; and, upon the addict's incapacitation or termination, the broken family usually operates at a lower income i.e. poverty level and/or requires social services of one kind or another.  Ironically, other addictive behaviors, some with even higher personal, familiar and social poverty costs, are allowed to proliferate e.g. gambling, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution, alcohol and drugs, adultery et al..  [End of Wikipedia quote and edit.]

---

[Creators of a new slave class of Poverty i.e. "poverty creators"  - ed]
Addiction: “Addiction is a chronic and progressive disorder characterized by the compulsive use of a substance or activity resulting in physical, psychological or social harm to the user and continued use despite the harm that it causes.”

Abortion Linked to Mental Health Problems, By Lori Johnson CBN News 2009 [http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/519697.aspx]   [  - ed]

Gambling Addiction - National Gambling Information Center ... Gambling changes the chemistry of the brain, and is one of the most difficult addictions to "cure" ... [ http://web.archive.org/web/20080605061001/http://www.ncalg.org/addiction.htm ] [ PDF ]

News:     Dr. Luke Clark of the Behavioral and Clinical Neuroscience Institute at the University of Cambridge said, "Gamblers often interpret near-misses as special events, which encourage them to continue to gamble. "These data inform … by extrapolation, the capacity of gambling to become addictive and pathological."
    Chad Hills, gambling analyst with Focus on the Family Action, said  "Video gambling is the most addictive form of gambling ever in history," he said. "People are becoming addicted in just one year". 
12-8-2008  Good News: Amsterdam to Close Brothels, Gambling Parlors
     Amsterdam has unveiled a comprehensive plan to close up to half of its businesses that "generate criminality," including brothels, gambling parlors and marijuana cafes. Saturday's announcement also includes offering help for those who lose their jobs as a result of the plan.  Amsterdam legalized prostitution in 2000.
     "It appears that the most liberal city in the world has reached the end of 'tolerance,' " said Daniel Weiss, senior analyst for media and sexuality at Focus on the Family Action. "They have stretched the bonds of so-called human freedom and found that it becomes violent, criminal and abusive - a detriment to society."  [emphasis added. - ed.]
     "Cultures, such as our own, ought to be wise by not allowing society to head toward such licentiousness." - Erin Blad  [10/18/10 broken link: citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000008839.cfm]

The 'enormous return' of philanthropies  (This article properly identifies the poverty eliminators" - ed.) https://onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=379562  ("for every dollar in foundation and charitable giving, there was a return of $8.58 in direct economic welfare benefits.")  (The critics in the Invisible_hand article have a hard time acknowledging the life changing success of the various Christian Charities.  Even though success over addictive behaviors can easily be produced like the above; and similarly, other successes where "numbers of people helped" by charities compared to similar "people helped" by government programs typically run close to 75% for charities to 10-15% for government programs.  - ed.)

[Morals: The Real Anti-Poverty Program. - ed.]  [Family Policy Institute of Washington researchers found that children living with both biological parents and in families that attend church regularly had "fewer problem behaviors, more positive social development, and fewer parental concerns about the child's learning and achievement."   Children in this group were also five times (500% ! - ed) less likely to repeat a grade. The results were found after a deep analysis of various government data.  http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/515529.aspx ]
 

The tobacco industry blank industry is often cited as an example of this: the sale of the industries products certainly brings a very good revenue, but the industry’s critics deny that the social benefits (the pleasures associated with it, the camaraderie, the feeling of doing something “cool”) can possibly outbalance the social costs.

The gambling industry is often cited as an example of this: the sale of the industries products certainly brings a very good revenue, but the industry’s critics deny that the social benefits (the pleasures associated with it, the camaraderie, the feeling of doing something “cool”) can possibly outbalance the social costs.  

The alcohol and drugs industry is often cited as an example of this: the sale of the industries products certainly brings a very good revenue, but the industry’s critics deny that the social benefits (the pleasures associated with it, the camaraderie, the feeling of doing something “cool”) can possibly outbalance the social costs.

The pornography industry is often cited as an example of this: the sale of the industries products certainly brings a very good revenue, but the industry’s critics deny that the social benefits (the pleasures associated with it, the camaraderie, the feeling of doing something “cool”) can possibly outbalance the social costs.

Homosexuality, prostitution, adultery although not necessarily industries are subsets of pornography ...  but the ... critics deny that the social benefits ... can possibly outbalance the social costs.

"The $112 billion figure represents a “lower-bound” or minimum estimate. Given the cautious assumptions used throughout this analysis, we can be confident that current high rates of family fragmentation cost taxpayers at least $112 billion per year. (emboldment added for emphasis, ed.).  The estimate of $112 billion per year is the total figure incurred at the federal, state, and local levels. Of these taxpayer costs, $70.1 billion are at the federal level, $33.3 billion are at the state level, and $8.5 billion are at the local level."  [The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing – Executive Summary (PDF) ]