Invisible Hand and Government Intervention

Can we depend wholly on Adam Smith’s invisible hand? In his famous book: The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith states: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens.” Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

What will self-love lead to?

Will it lead sellers to deceive their customers or will it lead sellers to do the right thing that benefits both the seller and the buyer?

Many economists have argued that if we leave it to the invisible hand, sellers will deceive their customers to deceive buyers. They will take advantage of their customers’ innocence and ignorance to overcharge then and pass off on them shoddy products. They will cajole customers to buy goods they do not want.

Clearly we have seen this happening here in Kenya. If you go to Luthuli, Kirinyaga rd in search of building material of vehicle parts; you will most likely find retailers who will take advantage of your innocence by overcharging you or sell you inferior products.

So the question is: should be leave it to the invisible hand to control the conduct of both the consumer and the producer?

If left alone, the market activities may affect people other than those directly involved. It may affect the air we breathe, the water we drink, the safety of the food we eat.

Some economist have insisted that: the market must be supplemented by other arrangements in order to protect the consumer from himself and from avaricious sellers, and to protect all of us from the spillover neighbourhood effects of market transactions.

The only problem with outside interference is: it tends to overreach its mandate and sometimes becomes worse than the disease itself.

Kenya

Plagued by corruption

Dog eat dog in caption

Country of building and tearing down

Men and women in alcohol they drown

Political leaders switching parties like business suits

Less concerned of constituents’ interest than personal pursuits

More political parties than provinces in the country

Yet they hear not of the public outcry

Starvation, mistreatment and depravation

Lots of talk but no transformation

Economy on the rise and well

The pockets of the rich swell

And the have-nots on the same trend they dwell

What happened to the middle class?

What is this opaque glass?

That obstructs the mass

To greater reach we can all enjoy

If politics, greed and jealousy does not destroy

And hard-work, community, and vision we employ

Mi Amor

Impeccable and wonderfully made

Irresistible beauty without façade

Unbridled charm so luring

Tender soft touch so curing

Such great emotions you whisk

Giving my all I can only risk

For you I will wait

For you I will wait

Through your persona you mesmerize

Yet how little do I realize

Innumerable passion you have to offer

Hidden deep within your coffer

Many have tried to enter

Yet no admittance can they muster

How can I gain entrance?

To what seems to be an enclave

Is there a key, a password?

I suppose am not the one

Better yet, the time is not now

The future maybe fruitful

But the mystique lingers for now

With hope I shall be patient

Patient for that which I desire

That which you hold with such secrecy.

I wrote this poem in 2006; just thought I should share it since I have hit a writer bloc for now.

Is hope selfish?

"I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope, For hope would be hope for the wrong thing." T. S. Eliot
When I read this quote it invoked lots of questions about what I have always thought about hope. Society teaches us to hope
According to Wikipedia, “Hope is the emotional state which promotes the belief in a positive outcome related to events and circumstances in one's life.[1] It is the "feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best"

Human beings are known to do things that are in their best interest. So our definition of “positive outcome” is relative. Our “wants” are self centered, indicating that they might not be the “right thing”, but the most satisfying thing.

Where do we draw the line between the right thing and the wrong thing? Whose point of view are we looking at right or wrong from?

If you wanted a particular outcome to an event, yet this particular outcome would harm others would you continue to hope for that outcome?
How do you look at hope?
Have you ever thought that which you hope for can be wrong?
If you acknowledged that which you hope for is wrong would you continue to hope for it (if you expect some gratification from it)?

Do I want to have kids?

This is a question that has been popping into my conversations lately. I guess it has to do with age, my affiliations, living with my nephews for almost a year and importance of such an issue at this time of my life.
I am not married, nor am I in a relationship but that does not mean I can not think of such things.
I have always feared that I am not ready to be a father but then again no one is ever prepared to deal with a little being who is 100% dependent on you.
It takes alot to be a parent and I think our generation has belittled the whole experience by engaging in careless sex and then taking the moral high ground against abortion (understand am not advocating abortion here, am simply stating that it is bewildering that some reckless behavior are a taboo while short term gratification that brings about the pregnancy and chances of contracting STD's is not seen as risky)

I am at the point that I feel prepared to be a father if the opportunity presented itself. I feel that I can provide the love, foundation and support that a child needs.
Here is some passage that I read that strengthened my desire to be a father...to play a role on in future generation:

“Children, who are not the end but only the possible and not the obligatory consequence of the union of a man and woman, are not automatically a prolongation of what their parents have been. And if all of us are at the same time jealous of the young (who just by existing, remind us adults of our death) and if we are always inclined to invest our own desire for immortality in them so that when we are no longer on the scene something of us will remain, this must not obscure the fact that every child represents the emergence of someone wholly other. An apparition of the future, the child relegates the generation before it to the past and rolls back the curtain of the future on a world that is new but neither engendered by history nor foreign to it, linked to the passage of time by an originative dialectic of continuity and rupture. The child is not primarily a reproduction of a parental model but a new venture, a unique and irreplaceable being who breaks through the known to open a way to the improbable. This is why the death of a child is a scandal that sends the parents back into the past, back to the known, the usual. For them the future dies, time closes up, life loses meaning.”

For what is in a Name?

At a gathering the other day, the issue of naming kids came up.
I don't have any kids nor had I given naming kids much thought.

There are three different groups when it comes to naming kids.
The first sticks strictly to ethnic/tribal names (no anglo name)
The second group combines ethnic/tribal names with anglo saxon names (via baptism)
The third group abandons their ethnic/tribal names and adapts purely anglosaxon names.
Each group has its reason for the way they name their kids, but should parent keep societal prejudices/biases into consideration when considering a child's name?

Our name serves as the label to our identity, pointing to culture, religious affiliation, sex, social position, ethnic background, tribal affiliation and even age.


Names can have a great impact on the social, financial and even residential impact on a person. Studies have been done that indicate African-American sounding jobseekers (same CV) received 50% less calls than Anglo sounding names. The same case applies for foreign sounding names. (http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html)
Even finding housing is an issue: "From 1,100 e-mail inquiries to Los Angeles-area landlords asking about vacant apartments advertised online, the traditional white sounding name elicited 89% of positive replies. A foreign sounding name brought in 66% of replies while the African-American name took in 56%. A landlord’s positive reply consisted of a follow up appointment to show off the property for lease or an indication that the place was available." (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/osu-ncl052306.php)

There is a chapter on exactly this in Freakonomics, a fun best seller about real-life economics.


"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Shakespeare clearly did not live in our discriminatory world and if he did, he chose not to notice the discrimination.


There are many Jewish, Asian, Latinos and even Kenyans who have Anglocized their names. They dont do this cause an Anglo name sounds better; they do it because at best people are ignorant or xenophobic and at worst racist.
I am in no way advocating Anglocization of all names, am simply stating that we live in a discriminatory country where someone can determine whether you get a job, house or into a school simply by looking at your name.

What is your opinion on the matter...should a parent ignore culture and give the child an Anglosaxon or should a parent stick to his/her guns and give the child an "ethnic/tribal" name knowing very well that the potential for discrimination increases?