Is The Invisible Hand just a madeup excuse to being selfish?
It's not really an "excuse" considering libertarians believe that selfishness is good and natural
>>952549
No.
But it is made-up.
It's funny how leftists create a whole narrative about how free-market is something that no one questions, at the same time they question it all the time at the media and universities.
The problem, of course, is that left-wing intellectuals are totalitarians by nature. If something they don't follow isn't given the "racism" treatment (ie considered completely outside the pale of acceptable discourse) they think it's too much.
The fact that there is people who believe in free-markets and that this people have a voice in public discourse is enough for left-wing intellectuals to believe that such discourse is hegemonic.
>>952549
I think if you go back to the source. Smith, he makes a good argument for how individual greed often results in economic growth over a long period of time.
defense of free markets as they are understood, was never a defense of all greedy actions (Smith actually ridicules the rich for spending money of bobbles more fit for children then men) Nor does it suggest than innocent people are never screwed over by greedy actions.
>>952602
More like they think people tend to behave selfishly so a system that assumes they wont be is set up for failure.
>>952549
It's not really an excuse so much as a simple analogy to help illustrate how the market self-corrects.
This is not a history thread. Just because youd get btfo on pol doesnt mean this belongs here.
>>952549
In theory there would be nothing wrong with said selfish behavior if the free market mythology actually held true. However as all but the most hardcore turbo-liberals know markets never tend to be truly competitive or in equilibrium. And that's saying nothing of the overwhelming support for parliamentarism everywhere, a system of government specifically designed to generate plutocracy.
>>952549
It's an archaic analogy for an actual effect, but the political discourse on it is garbage all around and the economists are almost as bad. Better to forget everything you've heard about it and start with reading about ant colonies.
>>952923
History and Humanities
>>952650
You wrote a lot for someone who didn't say much of anything or observe very keenly.
>>953179
That doesn't look like an argument
Is selfishness truly the "nature" of humans? Is the Malinowskian self-maximizing man true in all societies?
>>953298
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-03-brain-hard-wired-altruism.html#nRlv
Selfishness as human nature is pure ideology meant to make us compete against each other instead of working together for the betterment of our lives. *sniffs*
>>955547
Zizek what are you doing here?
>>955560
>>952549
The invisible hand and trickle-down economics are just buzzwords for stupid people believe in. No actual economists thinks any of those are real.
>>952549
the word is used a single time in a 1000 page book. Most people who claim to uphold things Adam Smith said never actually read the book. People tend to misunderstand words like Free market and invisible hand.
The invisible hand worked for the industrial capitalist age, but in the end it ended up creating a doomed class system. It may still exist, but like every economic system it will die (probably soon, as Trump, Sanders and Corbyn prove people are pissed off at Free Trade and increasing wealth disparity.)
>>953298
It really depends on your approach to the topic.
You can say that humans are selfish by nature and that the fact that majority of the tasks humanity performs are easier when we cooperate is caused by the selfishness because for selfish person it doesn't matter if somebody profits or doesn't profit from what are they doing, the important thing is that the person in question profits.
At the same time you can argue that we're able to cooperate because as social animals we have the ability to empathise.
>>952650
>leftists [sic]
>left-wing [sic]
>still believing in left vs right
fucking lol
