Monday, February 2, 2009 - 2:37 PM
Chinese premier Wen Jiabao gave an interesting interview to Financial Times editor Lionel Barber over the weekend.
First, you have to love the first words out of Wen's mouth: "I want to make clear here that I will be most sincere in all my answers, but I may not tell you everything."
Second, Wen endorsed the writings of Adam Smith -- well, one particular set of writings:
The society that we desire is one of equity and justice, is one in which people can achieve all round development in a free and equal environment. That is also why I like Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments very much.
In 1776, Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of the Nations. And in the same historical period, he wrote the Theory of Moral Sentiments. Adam Smith made excellent arguments in his Theory of Moral Sentiments. He said in the book to the effect that if fruits of a society’s economic development can not be shared by all, it is morally unsound and risky, as it is bound to jeopardize social stability .If the wealth of a society is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people, then this is against the popular will, and the society is bound to be unstable....
I think for quite some time this book has not attracted due attention or attention that it deserves. I think it is as important as The Wealth of Nations. He made a reference to the invisible hand only on two occasions in these books. One, he refers to the market; the other, he talks about the morality.
For those of you who were wondering, here's the relevant passage from Theory of Moral Sentiments:
The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. When Providence divided the earth among a few lordly masters, it neither forgot nor abandoned those who seemed to have been left out in the partition. These last too enjoy their share of all that it produces.
It is not that surprising to see someone who was educated in Marxism speak so fondly of Adam Smith. Despite all the talk of him being the ultimate liberal, Smith favored state intervention in many areas, and in his thoughts on morals, jurisprudence, and even economics (theory of value, rent, and indeed many other issues) Smith can be best identified as a "proto-Marxian".
When I read what Mr. Wen said and what Mr. Smith wrote, why do I flash on Inigo Montoya telling Vizzini, "I do not think it means what you think it means"?
This theory could lead to interesting conclusions
If I read this correctly it basically states that the more wealthy a person the more virtuous he is, particularly within the context of his society.
Barck Obama may be 30 times as wealthy as the average American, but President Wen is surely thousands of times as wealthy as the average Chinese. Wen is surely far more virtuous than Obama.
George Bush has perhaps 10X Obama's wealth, so he is surely more virtuous. But Soros is far wealthier than Bush, QED. Warren Buffett is surely the most virtuous man alive but the theory of moral sentiments.
Among governmental leaders this would seem to lead to a natural conclusion - that leaders like Yasser Arafat and Robert Mugabe, who have done very well in office, are without doubt the most virtuous of all! Mugabe must be the most virtuous man alive today, compare his wealth to a cholera victim and userly the disparity is not less than a million to one! But in practice - infinity. Which makes him infinately virtuous.....
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
(3)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE