Home > Uncategorized > From highway to master

From highway to master

from David Ruccio

Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations makes for uncomfortable reading these days. That’s because, as my students this semester have learned, the father of modern mainstream economics—who has become so closely (and mistakenly) identified with the invisible hand—held a narrow theory of money and advocated extensive regulation of the banking sector.

This is contrast to the obscene growth of banking in recent decades, which Rana Foroohar reminds “isn’t serving us, we’re serving it.”

According to Smith, the “judicious operations of banking” did nothing more than convert dead stock into active and productive stock—”into stock which produces something to the country.”

The gold and silver money which circulates in any country may very properly be compared to a highway, which, while it circulates and carries to market all the grass and corn of the country, produces itself not a single pile of either. The judicious operations of banking, by providing, if I may be allowed so violent a metaphor, a sort of waggon-way through the air, enable the country to convert, as it were, a great part of its highways into good pastures and corn-fields, and thereby to increase very considerably the annual produce of its land and labour.

Moreover, Smith also argued, banks were susceptible to speculative crises. Thus, even in his system of “natural liberty,” the banking sector needed to be regulated, in order to lessen the likelihood of such crises and to minimize the suffering of the poor when they did happen. 

To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them, or to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is a manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law not to infringe, but to support. Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments, of the most free as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.

 

Those warnings and regulations, of course, disappeared from contemporary mainstream economics—even as the financial sector continued to increase in size and significance within the U.S. economy.

finance-profits workers

Today, financial profits (the blue line in the chart above) represent more than a quarter of total corporate profits in the United States, although the financial sector provides only 4.3 percent of American jobs (the red line in the chart).

finance-profits inequality

Moreover, as the profits of the financial sector (the purple line in the chart above) have grown—reaching still another record high of more than $500 billion in 2016—the distribution of wealth has become more and more unequal—such that, in 2016, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1 percent (the green line in the chart) was more than 37 percent.

And it’s not just the financial sector. As Forohoor explains, corporations outside the banking sector are copying the spectacularly successful model:

Nonfinancial firms as a whole now get five times the revenue from purely financial activities as they did in the 1980s. Stock buybacks artificially drive up the price of corporate shares, enriching the C-suite. Airlines can make more hedging oil prices than selling coach seats. Drug companies spend as much time tax optimizing as they do worrying about which new compound to research. The largest Silicon Valley firms now use a good chunk of their spare cash to underwrite bond offerings the same way Goldman Sachs might.

The fact is, financial wheeling and dealing has—after a brief interlude—returned as the tail that wags the economic dog in the United States. It manages to capture an outsized share of profits, even as it creates increased instability and obscene levels of inequality.

It should be clear to all that finance has been fundamentally transformed since Smith’s day, from a highway that was supposed to serve us into a master that we serve.

  1. lobdillj
    September 28, 2017 at 10:03 pm

    Do you see any hope for the 99%?

    • Garrett Connelly
      September 29, 2017 at 1:15 pm

      Humanity is a beautiful blossom of cosmic powered biology.

      One percenters are mostly very sick cat-lady people afflicted with hoarder’s syndrome and willing to back up their addiction with militarized police.

    • October 2, 2017 at 12:57 am

      Do you?
      I look in the mirror and ask myself that question daily.
      The mirror tells me that accomplishing what I hope for is up to me and kindred spirits, not experts, with all due respect to any of them, some of whom, like Ruccio, are kindred spirits.
      I cannot rely on Obama’s “Audacity of Hope”, audacious thought it may be, because his morphed into “Mendacity of Grope” which, under the asterisk in the White House, has degraded further into the “Absurdity of Trope”.

  2. Alan
    September 29, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations makes for uncomfortable reading these days. That’s because, as my students this semester have learned, the father of modern mainstream economics—who has become so closely (and mistakenly) identified with the invisible hand—held a narrow theory of money and advocated extensive regulation of the banking sector.

    Yes, it’s enlightening if you go to the primary text rather than read the nonsense about Smith in most economics textbooks. Gavin Kennedy traces the invisible hand nonsense back to the early editions of Samuelson’s textbook but the nonsense continues (e.g. in Mankiw’s textbooks). The truth is that Smith is not the father of modern economics; Jeremy Bentham is. See, for example, Michael Emmett Brady’s The Das Economist Problem from 1790-2016: The Failure of Economists to Understand Adam Smith’s Ethical Foundation, Based on Virtue Ethics, for the Wealth of Nations.

    The major problem for the economics profession over the last two hundred years has been that the overwhelming majority of economists are not only utilitarians, but Benthamite Utilitarians, dedicated to interpreting all behavior through the cloudy bifocals of Bentham’s ‘maximizing utility’ dictum, which was to serve as the only measure of rational decision making. Bentham assumed that all probabilities (he called them ‘uncertainties) were known, precise, exact, additive numerical values, as were all of the values, results, costs, benefits, ends, outputs, outcomes, consequences or utilities. Such economists automatically sought to reinterpret the work of thinkers, who reject utilitarianism, such as Smith, Marx ,and Keynes, within a utilitarian framework of analysis. Such reinterpretations lead to the Das Adam Smith problem, Das Karl Marx problem, and Das John Maynard Keynes problem. However, it will be demonstrated in this paper that a more circumspect, judicious, and careful conclusion is that the real problem is a Das Utilitarian Economist Problem resulting from the utilitarian economists’ own gross ignorance and egregious, analytic errors, which is based on their utilitarian biases and inability to read any source predating Jeremy Bentham.

  3. October 3, 2017 at 1:07 pm

    Utilitarianism has been discussed for over 200 years. Utilitarianism tells us the good is the same as the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Utilitarianism is quite popular today. Most of us are at least intermittently utilitarian. And generally, we expect those running society to act on broadly utilitarian principles, to “maximize” goods and services (read “happiness”) for as many people as possible. But what are people willing to sacrifice for a utilitarian world? This tacit acceptance of utilitarianism in our daily lives, unfortunately often leaves us unable to challenge utilitarian proposals when they go too far. As it has with economists. As its name indicates, utilitarianism aims to be a useful, a practical philosophy. But usefulness ultimately makes sense only when it is underwritten by some definite idea of the good. This brings us to the difference between “in order to” and “for the sake of ” action, between the calculation of means and the acknowledgment of an ideal. Ideals such as democracy and fairness. Utilitarian ways of life work to the extent humans understand themselves as acting to achieve certain ends. To the extent that humans see themselves as moral actors whose lives are bounded by such ideals as freedom, democracy, etc., utilitarianism appears as a version of nihilism. The one question the committed utilitarian refuses to ask–“What is the use of use?” This question reveals the limits of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism falls apart where questions of morality begin. The utilitarian cannot deal with the choice between useful and an ideal such as democracy. Utilitarian economics must ultimately be non-moral.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.