Column on The Economist’s Individual

The Economist’s Individual
Tibor R. Machan
You may recall that about a month ago Alan Greenspan said, in his
testimony on the Hill, that he had been mistaken to think that the
self-interest of those working in financial institutions will serve their
clients’ interest and, thus, avoid anything like the meltdown we have
experienced recently. As he put it on Wednesday, October 22nd, "I made a
mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations,
specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of
protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
Greenspan was in fact referencing on two basic tenets of modern economic
science, namely, that (a) everyone acts selfishly all of the time (even
when one seems to be benevolent) and that (b) if people are not interfered
with as they pursue their self-interest, this will turn out best for all.
Here is how the late Milton Friedman put the first point: . . . every
individual serves his own private interest . . . . The great Saints of
history have served their ‘private interest’ just as the most money
grubbing miser has served his interest. The private interest is whatever
it is that drives an individual.” (The Line We Dare Not Cross," Encounter,
11/76:11) Adam Smith laid out the second tenet back in 1776. He argued
that when one is guided by one’s own self-interest, this is going to
promote the greater good "of the society more effectively than when he
really intends to promote it which was no part of his intention."
Why such confidence in self-interest? Because it really means something
very vague and can apply to all kinds of actions, just as Friedman
suggests. For economists self-interest is whatever one chooses, whatever
one freely selects as one’s goal, even if it is what would ordinarily be
considered self-destructive, such as suicide, or altruistic, such as
helping the poor in Africa (as Bill Gates has been doing with his
foundation recently)! My writing these lines, your reading them, indeed
everything we do of our own initiative is self-interested conduct.
In common sense terms, whenever one does what one chooses to do, one
necessarily advances one’s own agenda, no one else’s. Even if one is being
thoroughly helpful to others, this still is true–after all, one is acting
as one thinks best and that must be, the theory has it, something that
serves one’s own interest. To put it another way, the idea that we are all
acting from self-interest means merely that we are all doing, when not
being coerced by others, what we ourselves want to do. There is nothing
more to the idea, as the economist uses it. (After all, another widely
embraced thesis of economics is that what is best, what is right, is all
subjective, so there is no right versus wrong, good versus bad other than
how one sees things.)
So when Greenspan recanted the theory that “the self-interests of
organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were
best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the
firms” what he was saying, in common sense terms, is that the expectation,
the one advanced by Adam Smith, is sometimes mistaken, namely, that all
these people in all these organizations will always act to everyone’s
benefit.
Of course Smith’s thesis is by no means a wild and crazy one. Even if we
do not assume that people, when they act freely, follow their own lights
and so will always also benefit others, the opposite by no means follows.
That is the view that, for us all, to do what is best overall we must be
guided by government regulators, by the likes of, say, Representative
Henry Waxman, the man whose questioning elicited Greenspan’s comments and
a most fervent advocate of government intervention in the economy. This
latter theory, the one that places great confidence in government
regulation, is not made true just because the first theory, that the
self-interested or free conduct of everyone always promotes overall
welfare, is false.
Quite apart from the two tenets of modern economic theory, there are
independent reasons to be very weary of government regulation and good
reason to favor deregulation. Here, too, we can invoke a famous quote but
not from an economist but a political theorist, Lord Acton. He is the one
who observed, and quite truthfully, that "Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This means that government agents are
routinely corrupted by the power they hold. They aren’t always but they
are nevertheless tending in that direction and the greater their power
over others, the more they do so.
It is this thesis that the likes of Henry Waxman need to absorb but are
very likely to resist to the day they die.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s