In five pages this paper contrasts and compares these economic theorists' views on Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' concept. Eight sources are listed in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: TS14_TEinvhnd.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
economists theories that a market of non intervention was the best model. This was an early free trade theory that can be seen in operation today, although somewhat modified,
as the model that best typifies capitalisms. This was a theory of self regulation, this can be seen as an optimistic idea. The invisible hand was the manifestation of
the market forces, which he believed would lead to a situation where all goods would be properly priced (Nellis and Parker, 2000). This was as a result of supply and
demand, where goods were scare the price would increase. Where the price increases, if there were no restriction there would be the attraction to competitors to enter the market to
gain the higher profit levels, as a result there would be a greater supply and the price would decrease (Nellis and Parker, 2000). If there were too many of
a single item in the market, then the prices would fall, and suppliers would withdraw, the price would then increase once again (Nellis and Parker, 2000). It was for this
reason that any intervention was opposed, as it would have an effect on the prices. This meant an opposition not only to trade tariffs and taxes, but also measures such
as minimum wages legislation as well as production limits. The policy that was founded as a reaction against mercantilism was to find such a high level of support that it
can still be seen in the economics of the twenty first century (Nellis and Parker, 2000). The main policy of laissez faire, non intervention, is for individual welfare rather
the power of the state. The idea of the invisible hand meant that the required regulation would also be self regulation in a manner more effective than any government could