|
something to ponder...
 Is Self-Interest Selfish?
A Modern-Day Examination of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand
Conventional wisdom in the 1990's says we're all supposed to be unselfish, caring individuals who reach out to help others at the merest
hint of a need, with no thought for ourselves. The same conventional wisdom says it's wrong for anyone to amass a great fortune and keep it all to himself, when there are so many people in the world
who lack the basic necessities of life. Karl Marx was a great proponent of this philosophy.
I don't have any particular
problem with helping others. In fact, like anyone else, I rather enjoy being able to bless someone, by providing something
they need (or want) and haven't been able to obtain for themselves. Especially
when it's something I chose to do, of my own volition. I do, however, have trouble with the idea that I should feel guilty
for taking care of my own needs, and those of my family, before looking outside my own tent to be of help to others.
You're So Selfish!
By the wisdom of the '90's, I could probably be considered selfish for making that statement.
But by other standards, it might be said that I was merely acting in my own self-interest. The literal definitions of these
two words are remarkably similar, the differences being mostly attitudinal and a matter of degree.
Selfishness,
in the generally accepted sense of the word, sees nothing, is aware of nothing, and cares for nothing but its own gratification.
Self-interest, on the other hand, while looking to meet its own needs and ensure its long-term security, looks not only at the short-term benefits of its actions, but also to the long-term affect of its present actions on its
own future self-interest.
Adam Smith perhaps
said it best in his 1776 treatise on economics, "The Wealth of Nations". He said that when one produces goods that
are of value to others, and therefore marketable, one "intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an
invisible hand to promote an end which is no part of his intention.... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes
that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
Looking Out For #1
Let's say, for
instance, that I am the owner of a small manufacturing company, and that I spend my entire life "looking out for #1." In every
endeavor, and every circumstance, I determine my course of action based on what I think will be best for me, without taking
into account the interest of any others.
I could use the
cheapest materials available for my product, and use the money I save to remodel my office, but the result would be a lower
quality product, which would probably lead to less-than-satisfied customers (who might not come back again), and could possibly endanger
lives, depending on what type of product I manufacture. Or I could use higher grade materials and produce the best quality
product for my customers. Which is really "looking out for #1?"
In the same vein,
I can choose to provide follow-up service to my customers, to be sure the product they bought from me meets their needs and
expectations. Or I can adopt the popular "let the buyer beware" stance, operating on the premise that there are plenty of
customers out there, and if one or two don't come back, then I'll just sell my product to someone else.
The problem is,
every one or two customers who don't come back know at least five or ten other potential customers, who may never come
through my doors because of what they heard from the "one or two." Which is really "looking out for #1"?
As an employer,
I can provide benefits to my employees in addition to their hourly wages, including medical and other insurance, retirement
savings, and even a profit-sharing program. I can encourage, by means of wage incentives, employee committees and participatory
management, continual product improvement, product line expansion, improved customer service, and ongoing improvement in safety and working conditions.
Or, I can treat
my labor force as a replenishable resource that has nothing to add to the profitability of the company, most of whom don't
need more than the minimum of insurance coverage, and who probably won't stick around long enough to make a pension plan worth the time and trouble. Again, which is really "looking out for #1"?
The Reluctant Altruist
When a businessman conducts
his business to ensure his own best long-term self-interest, he is, in almost every case, also benefiting the
general society. If his direct action is to produce a widget of sufficiently high quality to command a profitable price in
the marketplace, he can continue to conduct his business. That means his workers continue to be gainfully employed, and are
probably not drawing welfare.
If his direct action
is to pay his workers a wage that is worthy of their hire, they can probably afford to buy a car, possibly a computer, and maybe even a house. That means the people
who manufacture cars and computers, and those who build houses, continue to be gainfully employed and are probably not drawing
welfare. And they, too, can probably afford to buy things like cars and computers and houses, keeping even more workers gainfully
employed and off the welfare rolls (and we haven't even mentioned the people who produce
food and clothing!).
If the employer's direct
action is to provide a clean, safe workplace for his employees, good insurance and other fringe benefits, and an atmosphere that encourages their input and
involvement in improving the company's product and service, they are more likely to be happy and healthy, which means lower
absenteeism, which translates to higher productivity, which in turn leads to higher profitability, which means he can continue
to conduct his business, etc.
Even when the capitalist's
direct action is to use the fruits of his labor to purchase something for himself, whether it be food or clothing,
a car, a home, or even a luxury yacht, he is helping to keep other people gainfully employed. Even when he is only meeting
his own personal needs and wants, he is made the reluctant altruist, benefiting the general society.
American Self-Interest
If the United States
is to continue as a major player in the global economic community, it is critical not only that we Americans understand the distinction between self-interest and selfishness, but that we expand that understanding to other parts of the world as well. Because selfishness is not just an American tale,
but rather a human weakness.
The more intimately
involved we become with an international economic system while lacking this basic understanding, the more certain it
is that the American economy will be subject to the officially sanctioned looting not only of its own selfish citizenry, but of every underdeveloped, redistributionist nation in the world.
LF-Feb.96
Author Unknown
Source Site: Click here
Divorce Doesn't Scar Children - Selfish Parents Do
By Rosalind Sedacca, CCT
Divorce is a highly emotional topic. When children are involved the consequences
are far more dramatic - and, not surprisingly, so are our opinions. I know there are many people who sincerely believe that no divorce is a good divorce. That children are always and inevitably
harmed by the physical and emotional separation of their parents. And that parents should - for the sake of the kids - just
stick it out and not rock the boat with divorce or separation until the children are grown.
This
is a particularly prevalent view for many who are grown children of divorce. These adults have experienced the dramatic
life changes that come with divorce and feel permanently scarred as a result.
This response
is certainly understandable. But it's not the final word on this subject. I have another perspective based on the experience of being raised in
a family that chose to stay together "for the sake of the kids." My parents should have divorced early in their marriage.
They were both miserable together, had little respect for each other, and raised two children in a home fraught with anger,
tension, frequent loud arguments and discord.
I remember my mother asking me one
day when I was in early adolescence whether she should divorce Dad. "No," I cried. I wanted a Mom and a Dad like the other
kids. My childhood was miserable and filled with insecurity. Immersed in that insecurity I feared what life would be like
if my parents were divorced. Mom didn't have the courage to do it anyway (those were vastly
different times, especially for women) and she continued in her unhappy marriage for decades more.
Looking back, I feel that was an unfortunate mistake. Neither of my parents were bad people. They
were both just totally mismatched. Their communication skills were miserably lacking and they were wrapped up in winning every
battle at all costs. The cost, of course, was the well-being of their family, especially of their children. I believe that
each of them would have been happier and more fulfilled had they parted ways and remained single or chosen another mate.
Based on my own personal experience, I've come to firmly believe that it's not divorce that scars
our children. It's wounded parents who do not care, understand or see that their behavior is hurting their children. It's
vindictive parents who put down the other spouse in front of their kids.
It's parents who decide they should have sole custody or primary influence over the
children with little regard as to the kid's relationship with the other parent. It's parents who confide their adult dramas
to innocent children who just want to love Mommy and Daddy. It's parents who put financial gain and material decisions over
the emotional well-being of their children.
In essence, it's
selfish parents who put their own needs ahead of those of their totally dependent children when making life-altering
parental decisions. When these parents get a divorce, the consequences are not only sad. Too often they end up scarring innocent psyches. They forget - or are ignorant about - how their decisions will affect their
children in the months, years and, yes, decades ahead.
It is not divorce per se,
but the divorce of two parents so enraged by each other that they make decisions based on blind hatred rather than conscious, educated wisdom. Let's put an end to this kind of behavior for the well-being of everyone in the family.
© Rosalind Sedacca
2007 All rights reserved.
Author's Bio: Rosalind Sedacca, CCT, has been facilitating relationship seminars and workshops for more than fifteen years.
As a Certified Corporate Trainer and professional speaker, she now focuses her attention on coaching troubled families on
how to create a "child-centered divorce." For free articles on this subject, her free ezine, and her book, How Do I Tell the
Kids about the DIVORCE? A Create-a-Storybook Guide to preparing your children -- with love, visit her website, www.childcentereddivorce.com
source site: click here
|
 |
|
Entitled Selfishness
Boomer Generation Is in a State of Denial
Robert J. Samuelson - Wednesday, January 10, 2007; Page A13 - Washington Post
As someone born in late 1945,
I say this to the 76 million or so subsequent baby boomers and particularly to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, our generation's
leading politicians: Shame on us. We are trying to rob our children and grandchildren, putting the country's future at risk in the process. On one of
the great issues of our time, the social and economic costs of our retirement, we have adopted a policy of selfish silence.
As Congress reconvenes, pledges
of "fiscal responsibility" abound. Let me boldly predict: On retirement spending, this Congress will do nothing, just as previous
Congresses have done nothing. Nancy Pelosi promises to "build a better future for all of America's children."
If she were serious, she would back cuts in Social Security and Medicare. President Bush calls "entitlement spending" the central budget
problem. If he were serious, he, too, would propose cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
They are not serious, because few Americans - particularly prospective baby-boom retirees - want them to be. There is a consensus against
candor, because there is no constituency for candor. It's no secret that the 65-and-over population will double by 2030 (to almost 72 million, or 20% of the total population), but hardly anyone wants
to face the implications:
? By
comparison, other budget issues, including the notorious earmarks, are trivial. In 2005, Social Security, Medicare
and Medicaid (the main programs for the elderly) cost $1.034 trillion,
twice the amount of defense spending and more than two-fifths of the total federal budget. These programs are projected to
equal about three-quarters of the budget by 2030, if it remains constant as a share of national income.
? Preserving
present retirement benefits automatically imposes huge costs on the young - costs that are economically unsound and
socially unjust. The tax increases required by 2030 could hit 50%, if other spending is maintained as a share of national
income. Or much of the rest of government (from defense to national parks)
would have to be shut down or crippled. Or budget deficits would balloon to quadruple today's level.
? Social
Security and Medicare benefits must be cut to keep down overall costs. Yes, some taxes will be raised and some other
spending cut. But much of the adjustment should come from increasing eligibility ages (ultimately
to 70) and curbing payments to wealthier retirees. Americans live longer and are healthier. They can work
longer and save more for retirement.
Because I've written all this before, I can anticipate some of the
furious responses from prospective retirees. First will be the "social compact" argument: We paid to support today's retirees;
tomorrow's workers must pay to support us. Well, of course they will pay; the question is how much. The alleged compact is
entirely artificial, acknowledged only by those who benefit from it. My three children (ages
16 to 21) didn't endorse it. Judging from the e-mail I receive, neither did many 20- or 30-somethings.
Next I'll hear that the Social
Security and Medicare trust funds, intended to cover future benefits, have been "plundered." Blame Congress and the White
House - not us. This is pure fiction.
Social Security, Medicare
and Medicaid are pay-as-you-go programs. Present taxes pay present benefits. In 2005, 86% of Social Security payroll taxes
went to pay current retiree benefits.
True, excess taxes had created
a "surplus" in the Social Security trust fund (it hasn't been "plundered")
of $1.66 trillion in 2005; but that equaled less than four years' worth of present benefits. More important, Medicare and
Medicaid represent three-quarters of the projected spending increase for retirees by 2030.
All the misinformation bespeaks
political evasion. With his rhetorical skills, Clinton might have raised public understanding. Instead, he lowered it by falsely
denouncing the Republicans for attempting to "destroy" Medicare. The first refuge of good Democrats is to accuse the Republicans
of conspiring against old folks by trying to dismantle Social Security and Medicare.
And Bush's credibility is shot,
because he made the problem worse. His Medicare drug benefit increases spending, and though it could have been justified as
part of a grand bargain that reduced other benefits, its isolated enactment was a political giveaway.
The failure to communicate
also implicates many pundits and think tanks, liberal and conservative. Pundits usually speak in bland generalities. They
support "fiscal responsibility" and "entitlement reform" and oppose big budget deficits. Less often do they say plainly that
people need to work longer and that retirees need to lose some benefits.
Think tanks endlessly publish
technical reports on Social Security and Medicare, but most avoid the big issues. Are present benefits justified? How big
can government become before the resulting taxes or deficits harm the economy?
Opportunities for gradual change
have been squandered. These public failings are also mirrored privately. I know many bright, politically engaged boomers who
can summon vast concern or outrage about global warming, corporate corruption, foreign policy, budget deficits and much more
- but somehow, their own Social Security and Medicare benefits rarely come up for discussion or criticism.
Older boomers (say, those born by 1955) are the most cynical, hoping their benefits will be grandfathered
in when inevitable cuts occur in the future.
Our children will not be so
blind to this hypocrisy. We have managed to take successful programs - Social Security and Medicare - and turn them into huge
problems by our self-centered inattention. Baby boomers seem eager to "reinvent retirement" in all ways except those that
might threaten their pocketbooks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
