Adam Smith did not have a “theory” of “an invisible hand”. That was a an idea invented by modern economists from the 1950s. Smith used ‘”an invisible hand” as a metaphor in Wealth Of Nations (Book IV, chapter 2, p 456) for some, but not all, merchants, who were concerned with the security of trading with foreign countries or the colonies, and, therefore, preferred to trade “domestically”.

It was their concern for their own security that ‘led them’ to invest in “domestick” industry, which Smith correctly noted added to “domestick annual revenue and employment” – a purely limited arithmetic outcome (the whole is the sum of its parts) – which Smith believed was a public benefit. The idea that this was a general benefit across all participants to the same degree was invented by, among others, Paul Samuelson in his Economics text, 1948, p 36, and in Arrow and Debrue’s theories of General Equilibrium.

You quoted a few lines from paragraph 9 and missed the particular and limited meaning Smith gave to it, as well as ignored the previous 8 paragraphs in which Smith makes clear his meaning. Metaphors express “in a more striking and interesting manner” their “objects” (see Adam Smith’s own “Lectures in Rhetoric and Belles Lettres” [1763] 1983, p 29.
—
Bourgeoisiologist Said,
February 12, 2011 @ 11:29 · Edit

Technical preamble: Somehow the comment did not appear under the original post to which it refers. I’ll attempt to move it or copy it over.

Back to the topic: I believe we may actually be in agreement as to the attribution of the “invisible hand” to Smith. The admittedly unspecified context of my question is precisely the mobilization of Smith as the putative progenitor of such a theory. Yet, even were we to assume that Smith is in fact the genuine authority on this matter, the theory itself seems to imply certain tendentious overtones that lack justification. As you mention, Smith is explaining a specific and limited phenomenon, which arguably related only incidentally to “public good.” It is a curious appropriation, then, that this should be taken to be a main thrust of the argument.

Thanks for the clarification on the matter and for the references you noted.

Back to the topic: I believe we may actually be in agreement as to the attribution of the “invisible hand” to Smith. The admittedly unspecified context of my question is precisely the mobilization of Smith as the putative progenitor of such a theory. Yet, even were we to assume that Smith is in fact the genuine authority on this matter, the theory itself seems to imply certain tendentious overtones that lack justification. As you mention, Smith is explaining a specific and limited phenomenon, which arguably related only incidentally to “public good.” It is a curious appropriation, then, that this should be taken to be a main thrust of the argument.

Thanks for the clarification on the matter and for the references you noted.

It was their concern for their own security that ‘led them’ to invest in “domestick” industry, which Smith correctly noted added to “domestick annual revenue and employment” – a purely limited arithmetic outcome (the whole is the sum of its parts) – which Smith believed was a public benefit. The idea that this was a general benefit across all participants to the same degree was invented by, among others, Paul Samuelson in his Economics text, 1948, p 36, and in Arrow and Debrue’s theories of General Equilibrium.

You quoted a few lines from paragraph 9 and missed the particular and limited meaning Smith gave to it, as well as ignored the previous 8 paragraphs in which Smith makes clear his meaning. Metaphors express “in a more striking and interesting manner” their “objects” (see Adam Smith’s own “Lectures in Rhetoric and Belles Lettres” [1763] 1983, p 29.