The Invisible Hand

[@MilciadesAndrion]

I understand the 'invisible hand' as benefits for society based on individual decisions in a free market. It helps the supply and demand of goods to reach equilibrium.

[@joshi5009]

great imagery hope you pay the animator well

[@ridoanuddin3378]

It is an invisible boot from what I experienced.

[@kukuki5000]

Oh no, my shitty job became obsolete to make place for new ones. If only cars didn't get popular I could still shovel horse shit in the stable.

[@XtremeQuantumSrength405]

"Welp at least its not capitalism"

[@nolsterbuckr8496]

@@kukuki5000 *nervously sweats as the machine-learning algorithm studies all my inputs for its optimization program*

[@IsraelAuss]

You didn't experienced the invisible hand because you never lived under a free marker economy, only a regulated one. You were actually affected by the state hand

[@aryands6646]

@@kukuki5000 Oh no, the Rent seeker decided to cut my wages in half to make sure his son got the Ferrari for his 16th bday.

[@Ral9284]

[01:11] People should self-improve. With the same treatment than it is given to grain [00:24] should be given to workers. The advantage of the worker is that the worker can self-improve, by learning something new and/or acquire a new ability.

[@Esor86]

Another excellent animation of a complex idea!

[@pornstargrandpa]

I still dont get it

[@szczesciejestkoloruczarneg749]

Learn from some other places, bbc does its agenda here... "(...)it is better described as an invisible boot" - screw you, bbc They say that but I say free market wouldn't allow any unemployment unless someone choose not to work because of many opportunities. Nigel Warburton needs to educate himself Megan jones, read 1) "What is seen and what is not seen" Bastiat 2) "Road to serfdom" Hayek 3) "Economics in one lesson" Hazlitt ...4) "Human action" Mises ... and of course 5) "wealth of nations" Smith You can also subscribe to @econclips and you will be fine :)

[@schoumy81]

@@szczesciejestkoloruczarneg749 I think Nigel Warburton is fine with not polluting his thoughts with neo-liberal dogma.

[@szczesciejestkoloruczarneg749]

@@schoumy81 Read Hayek/Mises and piss off

[@ridoanuddin3378]

When free Market exists well established old businesses easily survive but New business don't do that good. In well governed socialist Market New business gets equal opportunity (if I'm not mistaken)

[@ridoanuddin3378]

The invisible hand only helps the rich, the old and well established ideas New ideas and New business gets the boot.

[@SebbyNilsen]

Poldark and his servant in the right corner. 0:43 With the wheat/grass.

[@MathieuDeflem]

This is the only video in the series to conclude with a critique of the idea that is introduced.

[@dakka3495]

WcBonalds does pay pretty bad.

[@karlstriepe8050]

The impulse in these videos to introduce criticisms at the end is misleading; in this case, Smith was obviously aware of the problem of labor exploitation and devoted several chapters to it in "The Wealth of Nations," such as Chapter 8 of Book 1.

[@fathimanisma8404]

such an awesome video! neatly explained! Thank You!

[@MaartenvanRossemLezingen]

The invisible hand kind of falls flat on its face when large corporations start utilizing power at the expense of the consumer. This is how cable companies charge more for their internet packages than they're actually worth, not to mention pharmaceutical companies and bankers, who make millions of dollars for contributing barely anything to society. This of course happens mostly in the US. Just because a power with particular interests isn't called a government doesn't mean it can't have a negative effect on the economy.

[@AusNintendo]

+Maarten van Rossem Lezingen a very simple answer, vote with your dollar. If you feel a company/ resource is being manipulated boycott that company/ resource. I think the issue here is that people are not willing to go without. It is the own individuals greed that is causing the issue. The corporations are merely taking advantage of the fact.

[@MaartenvanRossemLezingen]

Luke Gastin Companies aren't people, they don't make conscious decisions based on morality but will always find a way to make as much profit as possible. Boycotting never works, if there's a monopoly on software (Microsoft) no one will boycott that product, if there's a popular trousers company that exploits children (insert any popular clothing brand) there will always be enough ignorant or not caring people to buy those trousers. If there's no government companies can sell you poison and call it milk, team up with other companies to charge the highest prices imaginable (which is legal in the US) or do whatever other horrible thing that can make them even the slightest amount of more money. Ordinary people will never all get involved to hold every company accountable for their wrong doings and if they would they would automatically form some kind of government-like organization.

[@AusNintendo]

I agree in some cases for example no one is going to boycott the most prestigious university in the world because they ruined someones life through immoral practises or similar. But in alot of cases corporations are only giving the public what they are voting for with their own money and the public know full well the downside of what they are buying and do so anyway (eg: mcdonalds) I also think self reliance has to come into it to an extent. Grow your own, make your own etc. We rely far too much on these big corporations to baby sit our every need. Anyway Im tired of blaming and scape goating its time the individual is accountable the dont complain about the forests being ruined and at the same time build your house with timber type scenarios are rife in todays world.

[@MaartenvanRossemLezingen]

Luke Gastin Well I happen to like the fact I don't need a garden and a hunting rifle to keep me fed. But I think you're right, we shouldn't blame the corporations, they are just things that will make as much profit as they can, rather blame the corrupt government that listens to these corporations instead of the people.

[@AusNintendo]

+Maarten van Rossem Lezingen sounds to me like you're just looking for anyone to blame but youself. change starts with you my friend!

[@Donteatacowman]

I like Smith's "Erm, you are twisting the context slightly!" in the corner lol. I know there's a ton of invisible-hand discourse lately, but I think that's about seeing the "hand" as an unquestioned good instead of being critical of the forces it produces, as if the hand was some kind of conscious creature with our good in mind. (The video portrays this idea well.) Let me look up some of the critique on this. I'm guessing that the issue is "if the invisible hand is always good, why does poverty exist and wealth disparity grow when capitalism has fewer regulations?" I was taught as a kidlert that the invisible hand was always good and that any market regulations would do more hurt than good. Example - raising the minimum wage increases employer costs, making them raise prices, and directly increases inflation and layoffs. As an adult I realize that this idea is flawed because employers do not act robotically in response to legislation AND they have options other than increasing prices. Some of these options are good and are what an increased wage would do-shrink the CEO/company's wealth hoarding, decreasing their annual pay while offering more benefits and better quality of life to their employees. However... companies will also try to offset the cost more duplicitously, using the minimum wage raise as an excuse to lay off some employees and overwork the other ones (who, if all the companies in the industry are doing this simultaneously, can't leave for a better job) while keeping their CEO wages the same or even increasing them thanks to the hardship they've had to manage. So, with all things, it's complicated. But the answer isn't to let minimum wage workers starve in parking lots and live on food stamps because the CEO wants a bigger pool. If anything, this scenario argues for higher regulation on companies -- wage caps for CEOs or higher taxes on companies or universal basic income and health care or mandatory benefits... but good luck passing THOSE until we outlaw lobbyists I guess lol. Let's see... Looks like critics of the "invisible hand" model say the following- The phrase is not actually a big focus of Smith's writing; economic theory about its importance developed afterwards Smith spoke more about the tragedy of wealth inequality, but that capitalists who invest in local industry will accidentally benefit the poor It models the French industrialist economy only It simplifies many different forces that may or may not be regulated It only makes sense in a narrow set of circumstances

[@yoursubconscious]

this video was beyond its time in graphics and delivery. However, it is one thing: evergreen!

[@totalbadass500]

After watching a few videos this is the one that made sense. Thank you!

[@liampovey6942]

This is not quite right. In Wealth of Nations the expression "invisible hand" is only used for a very different concept. Smith feared that in the full realisation of his theory England would suffer because people from England would stop buying english products and start buying cheaper products elsewhere. He tries to solve this dilemma by proposing that someone from a particular country would be more compelled to buy products from there own country as if they were guided by an invisible hand. That is the only time Smith mentions the invisible hand. He also says industrialism and division of labour will lead to slavery. A shame no one mentions these things about him

[@MasterTaiki]

+Liam Povey So the premise doesn't work in the U.S considering everything is made from China, correct?

[@liampovey6942]

Not entirely, since Smith obviously couldn't forsee how the exportation and relocation of labour could benefit a country since he lived in a time where labour still seemed to be the only source of wealth (which it is) and the idea of things being mostly created in one country but the profits of that creation being held in another probably seemed outlandish to him. And to an extant you can see that effect taking place just on a much smaller scale.

[@AizwellOfficial]

You got it wrong, it's not about buying a product it's about investing one's capital : "As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of *domestic industry*, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, 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. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations par. IV.2.9 The issue here, is that Smith presumes that a capitalist would have a "home bias", but that's not the case currently, therefore the "Hidden Hand" can't exist...it could only exist in a closed economy.

[@armanmkhitaryan27]

The thing is, in fact, you both are right :) "[T]o employ his capital in the support of domestic industry" has more to do with principle investment, but, every time you buy "wage goods" (this-plus labor power factor- is what the middle class is there for in the eyes of the rich class, brutal honesty) you make a small but yet investment, with no monetary return though for you, but it is still an investment for the producer in the sense it supplies them with money, and for you in the sense of supporting local business. So, technically of course Smith was talking about large capital investment but it's perfectly applicable to any indirect investment, including purchasing local goods, etc. And as you both say, this home bias is not a thing these days and hardly ever was. Money is not a social construction such as nationality, it can't have any home bias; it's as if you said wealth or profit had nationality. Smith's "fear" is there I'm sure, at least in some cases, some capitalists indeed prefer to invest mostly in their country, many of them may have some fears and concerns with investing abroad, but that's an insignificant minority of them. As I just said, wealth does not have national identity. It's not measured in UK pounds or US dollars only--anything goes.

[@KaoticOrder]

You're using Noam Chomsky's completely fabricated definition of the invisible hand. The Wealth of Nation's is actually five books, one of which is meant to dismantle mercantilism. given that Smith was against mercantilism, it's clear he didn't mean what you're trying to imply. Adam Smith introduced to the concept of comparative advantage between nations. This is the essence of global economics. You should try actually reading wealth of nations as I have.

[@kellykitkat40]

Adam Smith may have gotten his idea from Hesiod's Works and Days 11-24 , in which two different goddesses named Eris are distinguished: So, after all, there was not one kind of Strife alone, but all over the earth there are two. As for the one, a man would praise her when he came to understand her; but the other is blameworthy: and they are wholly different in nature. For one fosters evil war and battle, being cruel: her no man loves; but perforce, through the will of the deathless gods, men pay harsh Strife her honour due. But the other is the elder daughter of dark Night (Nyx), and the son of Cronus who sits above and dwells in the aether, set her in the roots of the earth: and she is far kinder to men. She stirs up even the shiftless to toil; for a man grows eager to work when he considers his neighbour, a rich man who hastens to plough and plant and put his house in good order; and neighbour vies with his neighbour as he hurries after wealth. This Strife is wholesome for men. And potter is angry with potter, and craftsman with craftsman and beggar is jealous of beggar, and minstrel of minstrel. The actress Kim Cattrall named her own character in Star Trek II after the Goddess Eris, .. which name was then "vulcanized" to Valeris. ... hmm, the tree of knowledge of... lust versus love... what motivates a person to do what he does ? The dominatrix, or the goddess, which does he choose to serve? Lust, or love? Self-interest, in regards to short-term (earthly temporal pleasure) or long-term (day of judgement, heaven or hell) thinking? Economics is value neutral. Morality (moral compass) and ethics (social acceptance) is for political consideration : Sex in the City.

[@mace3988]

Why is the BBC, which purports (however laughably) to maintain a remit to educate its listeners, lying to them directly? Adam Smith made no such use of "invisible hand". His use of the phrase was to describe how a supposed preference for domestic investment amongst the owners of capital would ensure domestic industry was protected. He does NOT use it for the purpose you indicate. What a sad and pathetic institution the "BBC" has become. It is no wonder many are refusing their begging of a "fee".

[@taarnaandros7859]

BBC is crap.

[@robhuhges]

Better than a boot stamping on a human face forever.

[@shamanthjilla]

Did either Adam Smith or Hayek claim that the invisible hand was benevolent?

[@maccoat]

No

[@wanda5983]

Yes

[@jasonbudiana4022]

i dont get it

[@ILoveABBA12]

Oh God, Aidan...

[@zoricazorica5752]

Those with nothing to offer fear the free market

[@patrikpass2962]

Im not allowed to farm the land, its all bought. You should not be forced into wage labor.

[@4125730]

When sellers start hoarding goods for larger profit, form cartels to artifically deive up the prices and control the market and government with that profit......you will start realizing that we needed to regulate hoarding ! Government that regulates hoarding and cartels functions better than your invisible hand.

[@4125730]

For the common good , not for the good of big boys who send their profits overseas

[@hellinterface6721]

lol RANJAN NAYAK. Wtf did I just read? Use an English name before trying to communicate with English speaking peoples.

[@savvy_me]

Another term for synergy

[@VijayRana-qg2gz]

It should be noted that this principle is wrong incase there is a group of girls and all your squad wants to get laid.

[@franbonner6691]

The new description of this is trickle-down economics the same distraction that was used to take advantage of the teaching of a brilliant man and to cover up the greed of the entitled ones I never thought people to be lazy just disillusioned whit the systems of wealth distribution

[@mattwc101WP]

i LOVE TO YEET AND YAH

[@mattwc101WP]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTT

[@ArjunKonuganti]

hihihi

[@ArjunKonuganti]

good comment

[@ArjunKonuganti]

hi

[@ArjunKonuganti]

syduy

[@jeavon69]

🧠 1:05

[@elfootman]

There's no such thing as a free market.

[@zackhussain1466]

In Islam there is

[@elfootman]

@@zackhussain1466 LOL ok

[@pacopiedad6182]

WackDonalds

[@nickcorona3966]

Way to inject your liberal propaganda into what should be an educational video about the concept, and not your unsolicited criticism of it.