Adam Smith is the father of modern economics, an economist who has inspired us for more than 200 years. His two works, The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, were both pioneering works and laid the theoretical foundation of economics. One of the most important contributions is Adam Smith's insight into human nature.

Why is this insight important? Teacher Xue Zhaofeng explained it clearly to us in four sentences.

Whether people are rational or irrational has nothing to do with economics. What economics is concerned about is not the question of whether people are rational or irrational, but the question of how people can survive. Under what conditions, people are more It is easier to survive, what kind of behavior is easier to survive. In this way, economics has found a solid foundation, which has nothing to do with whether people are rational or irrational.

Are people selfish or not?

There is a saying that economics is based on the premise of selfishness of human nature, but in fact, people are often unselfish, so economics is not necessarily correct. Economic theory is right when people are selfish, but when people are not selfish, economic theory is wrong.

There is another saying that people can be selfish sometimes, but people must also be moral. Especially businessmen, on the one hand they have to fight and fight in the shopping mall, but at the same time businessmen should have moral blood flowing in their veins.

Many people say that Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nation" (?Wealth of Nation, 1776?) advocates that people are selfish.

We all remember Smith’s famous saying: “Everyone does not need to care about social welfare, and he does not know how to promote social welfare. He only needs to care about himself and pursue his own welfare. That's it. But in the process of pursuing his own welfare, there will be an invisible hand that turns his efforts into promoting the cause of public affairs. This invisible hand will make his selfishness. To promote the improvement of social welfare."

However, people will also point out that Adam Smith actually wrote another book called "The Theory of Moral Sentiments." 1759?). As you can tell from the title of this book "Theory of Moral Sentiments", it talks about people should be moral, so people should have two sides, one is selfish, but the other is moral.

Is Adam Smith’s view so self-contradictory? Sometimes you have to be selfish and sometimes you have to be moral? So when is it selfish and when is it ethical? Let’s see what Adam Smith actually said.

First of all, Adam Smith published "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" in 1759, and 17 years later, in 1776, he published "The Wealth of Nations". "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" is a summation and a general manifestation of Adam Smith's entire theoretical framework, of which "The Wealth of Nations" is a part.

Of course, "The Wealth of Nations", published 17 years later, is longer and more famous. This is something to talk about later. So, are people selfish? How did Adam Smith answer?

Adam Smith first said that people are selfish. Those who are not selfish at all, those who do not even love themselves, and those who give up on themselves, such people are not respected in society.

But Adam Smith went on to say that people are not only selfish, they are also compassionate, which is the ability to put themselves in others' shoes. He regards what he thinks is the happiness of others as part of his own happiness: If you are happy, I am happy; if you are miserable, I feel pain too. This is a natural ability called "sympathy" that everyone has.

Of course, today we know that not everyone is equally compassionate. Some people are stronger and some are weaker; normal people are stronger and autistic people may be weaker; women are stronger and men may be weaker.

But no matter what, people can sympathize and have compassion, which means they are loving, which means they have the ability to love. This is the second sentence Adam Smith said, people are selfish, but people are compassionate.

Immediately afterwards, Adam Smith said a third sentence: "Human sympathy declines rapidly as the distance between people increases.

”

Let’s take a look for ourselves. How many people are there in the address book on our mobile phones? How many contacts are there in WeChat? A few dozen people are at least, and many people have hundreds or even Thousands of people.

Let me ask you, among these hundreds or thousands of friends, how many of them really love you when you pick up the phone? All the things on the Internet, how many people have said that I want to borrow money and I need help, and the other party will help you regardless of the cost?

Are there 10? Are there 5? This means that we can only love a few people.

Adam Smith. "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" tells such a story:

Let's assume that there is a very decent gentleman in London. This gentleman heard that there was an earthquake in China far away in the east. The Chinese are all dead. The news reaches London and reaches the ears of this decent gentleman. What do you think he will do first? Check out the map to see how far China is from London. First, see if the earthquake will affect London. It's halfway across the world, and London is safe.

Then. What will he do? He will mourn the deaths of the Chinese people. He will post a candle on Weibo and lament the fragility of man and the power of nature.

What will he do next? He will do whatever he wants. He will go back to his own life and care about his daily life and diet. At this time, if his own finger is cut with a knife, this matter is far more important than what happened in China. It's more important.

You have to pay attention, this is a decent British gentleman, and this is the proper reaction of a normal person.

Therefore, Adam Smith saw this very wisely:

It is difficult for us to win and maintain the friendship and love of a few people throughout our lives. , but we need the help of thousands of people all the time. Let's look at how many people are involved in our food, clothing, and housing, and how many people are helping us, but they don't love us, and they don't. Get to know us. What to do? How to fill such a big gap?

The answer is the market. It is a place where strangers interact with strangers.

So this is a dichotomy:

Man is selfish, he has compassion, he can love, but love is very limited, as the distance between people If we don't, love will decline. We can't rely on love. What we rely on is the market.

So, Adam. · Smith has another famous saying:

The reason why we have dinner every day is not because of the bakers, not because of the butchers, not because of the brewers. They love us and their charity, but because of them. To be selfish, they want to pursue their interests. Whenever we do business with them, we don’t say what we need, we say what they need.

When I am in class, I always tell my classmates why you should learn some economics and why economics will be helpful to you. And I never tell my classmates that my family is still short of money and I want to buy a washing machine and a microwave oven.

Business is the greatest charity, so what we see is such a continuous spectrum:

People are selfish -> He has love -> Love is limited, love cannot Expansion -> So we need a platform for strangers to help each other, that is the market.

We will not apply the rules of dealing with strangers to our small circle, nor will we apply the rules of the market to our family or circle of friends. Similarly, we will not use the requirements and standards within our family to demand other strangers in society.

In the past few days, after listening to Luo Pang's selections in this issue of "Get", I felt very touched, so I excerpted the relevant content, hoping it will be helpful to you.

Disclaimer: This article is excerpted from "Get" Luo Pang's selection.