Adam Smith
economics can’t be seen as value-neutral driven. Modern Economists misread the
father of economics by either not reading The Theory of Moral Sentiments or by
considering it independent from his other book, slightly more famous. Oddly
enough, the so-called father of economics gave birth to a child that didn’t
share the Scottish Enlightenment’s DNA, for Smith’s reasoning was embedded on
Scottish Tradition under which moral concerns played a major role.
Born out of
Smith’s wedlock with the Illuminati, not exactly nine months after the author’s
major academic intercourse in 1776, the Homo Economicus, put it short, is a
misinterpretation of Smith’s self-interest concept.
Little by
little the politique was taken away from the économique and economics became
mathematics. In order for economics to be a science such as physics men were
reduced to atoms. Quoting Murray Gell-Mann, “Think how hard physics would be if
particles could think”, now, think how hard economics would be if men had
feelings...
Modern economics, under the streetlight effect, asks not this question. A drunken mainstream economist is looking for his car keys under a lamppost, a younger economist asks whether he has lost his keys there, the prominent economist replies: “No, I lost the keys somewhere across the street, but the light here is better”. The youngster follows his master with all his heart, ironically, for heart matters belong not to the modus operandi of his science. He gets thrilled when his paper proving that emotions play no role in economics wins the Clark Medal. In the following years he gets completely obsessed with the possibility of winning the Nobel. Unfortunately this fairy tale doesn’t have a happy ending; during his lifetime another economist was actually able to prove that humans are robots, hence winning the Nobel prize for his major contributions in fostering the scientific inherent aspects of life.
Modern economics, under the streetlight effect, asks not this question. A drunken mainstream economist is looking for his car keys under a lamppost, a younger economist asks whether he has lost his keys there, the prominent economist replies: “No, I lost the keys somewhere across the street, but the light here is better”. The youngster follows his master with all his heart, ironically, for heart matters belong not to the modus operandi of his science. He gets thrilled when his paper proving that emotions play no role in economics wins the Clark Medal. In the following years he gets completely obsessed with the possibility of winning the Nobel. Unfortunately this fairy tale doesn’t have a happy ending; during his lifetime another economist was actually able to prove that humans are robots, hence winning the Nobel prize for his major contributions in fostering the scientific inherent aspects of life.
Passionate
economists argue that Robot Economicus inhabits our world, they twist-and-shout
and scream-and-cry to defend their deep beliefs. Just don’t blame Adam Smith
for our blindness, the man he portrayed wasn’t ruled by algorithms:
“Though every man may, according to the proverb, be the whole world to
himself (...) Though his own happiness may be of more importance to him than
that of all the world besides (...) In the race for wealth, and honours, and
preferments, he may run as hard as he can, and strain every nerve and every
muscle, in order to outstrip all his competitors. But if he should justle, or
throw down any of them, the indulgence of the spectators is entirely at an end.
It is a violation of fair play, which they cannot admit (…) They readily,
therefore, sympathize with the natural resentment of the injured, and the
offender becomes the object of their hatred and indignation”.
