Personally, I was interested in Frank’s logic behind human
action and his reasoning as to why the “invisible hand” seems overly simplistic.
Frank’s main premise within Chapter 3 is an attempt to paint a picture of his views
behind human intentions by establishing how the complexity of self-interest has
other ramifications when considering the context in which those choices are
made. At the end of the day, it really comes down to definitional barriers between
relative vs. absolute costs and how they function within the framework of
personal desire.
Likewise, self-interest may be redefined according to each individual’s
perspective because not everyone values consumption at an equal rate. As Frank points out on Page 42, “when relative
income is important, the invisible hand breaks down,” because it is based on
the idea that humans weigh additional costs and benefits solely on the inherent
promise of absolute consumption and nothing else. Obviously, humans value more
than the temporary promise of the tangible and react likewise.
Therefore, Frank argues that self-interest is not nearly as
one-dimensional as Adam Smith seems to believe, because humans act beyond
tangible expenditures. Possibly, this is why Frank has so avidly made his
argument based off of Darwinism, which I still find unnecessary accept for its
unique biological appeal.
Still, there are obvious risks in attempting to manifest some
regulation aimed at creatively confining personal measures of self-interest. After all, it is one thing to presume how certain
individuals act within a particular context and an entirely different matter to
assume that there is actually a correct implementation to control those diverse
responses effectively, especially when many are apt to disagree. In those
cases, everyone is left with the question of who decides.
Even though Frank is beginning to consider human nature as more
complex than Adam Smith’s initial argument for the validity of the "invisible hand," I understand where Frank is coming from
more so than I have in chapters past. Anyhow, if self interest is going to be
so trivial and self inflicted decisions really don’t end up benefiting the
group as Frank suggests, there must be some way to alter
individual incentives to merge with the collective. The most assured way of
making the group work as a whole is to provide them with no other choice but to
conform to some set of rules. In this way, those limitations might be viewed as
equalizers, preventing the majority from feeling overly pressured to conform to
the ideals of the group...that is, if those pressures really are as harmful as Frank seems to think...Ultimately, human nature is such that it is not easily captured nor defined in any academic sense. After all, between sociology and psychology, I can’t help but wonder how far the economic scope may realistically stretch in theorizing the root causes of human action. Frank is attempting to dig deeper in explaining market imperfections due to the common perspective of the human condition in a way that is insightful yet undoubtedly, difficult to define.
Granted, Frank’s arguments were much more to the point and his examples more effective in this chapter but I can't help but wonder if in assuming that humans act with varied and diverse intentions, his methods still to come may prove fatal, only forcing the majority towards a mandatory, overly generalized, one-dimensional response, hindering the significant complexities of individual self-interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment