DjinnFor said:
Callate said:
The Congo, ladies and gentlemen: viable evidence that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" don't correct bupkus.
...Not really.
(Going to ignore the double negative there)
Implying your superiority by "ignoring" a double negative in a commonly recognized colloquialism, even while dismissing the statement out of hand. How "gracious".
In the narrow sense, Smith stated that in the preference of an individual to support domestic industry over foreign, he inadvertently served the public interest even while solely intending to serve "his own security". "...He intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an
invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
In the broader sense- in which Smith in general and the "invisible hand" statement in particular is cited by economists of various stripes- Smith implies that merchants often serve the public good by trying to serve their own, and that outside attempts to regulate those same "assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it." And further: "If the produce of domestic can be brought there as cheap as that of foreign industry, the regulation is evidently useless. If it cannot, it must generally be hurtful."
In the DRC, a lack of regulation has led to children being used in mines to extract valuable minerals (among other conditions, some explained in the article) which most would consider to be harmful to the society. A worldwide tolerance for and unwillingness to regulate these conditions- whether through embargo, sanctions, or other means- allows the Congo to persist as simply the least expensive provider of those materials. The "merchants" in this case are supporting an economy which is
destructive of their security- whether they're the people mining in unsafe conditions, those packing the ore to the markets and risking assault for their valuable cargo, or merely the exporters whose work funnels money to all sides of never-ending violence in their back yard.
Ergo, as I stated in a rather more flippant fashion, it would appear the so-called "invisible hand" could be said to have failed to create self-regulation in what- however ugly- might be construed a "market".
It is, of course, an open question whether people would be better
off, especially in the short term, if the trade in conflict minerals were eradicated; if, for example, children would cease being slave miners only to return to being child soldiers. If less money for guns would also mean less money for food. And beyond that, if it is even within the realm of feasibility for those outside the country to act in such a way as to create predictable change within it, especially given its long history of conflict.
But to say something is an "open question" is far from saying it's a rhetorical one. And I will be interested to hear what the second part of the article has to say on that matter.
