----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Jean Deflaceliere wrote: 
 
"And there is no doubt that the 'hand for intention' substitution is a metonymy since hand
and intention are in a relation of contiguity through the person."
    
Thank you Jean for the lovely piece on literary games people play with metaphor and
metonymy and other such wonderful things.
 
Sorrowfully, I am quite lost about the  'hand for intention' substitution, because I
supposed that the 'invisible hand' delivers 'unintended consequences'.  If the hand means
intention, than Menger and his disciples all must read WN afresh and throw away the whole
edifice of 'spontaneous origin' of market institutions arising as 'unintended
consequences' of the invisible hand. The Austrian School and the Coasian neo-
institutionalism will collapse if the unintended consequence is removed.
 
And then the whole basis of free enterprise will be set to naught. If the hand could
intend or the intetion could flow through the contiguous person's hand, then the butcher
and baker could intend to regulate the market. It would not be self-regulated any more.
    
The idea of invisible hand that filtered down, whether with or without enlightenment,
seems to mean that  there is a mechanism at work, immune from the intentions of
individuals, to bring about a coordination that promulgates the law of the market. The
seller alone or the buyer alone cannot dictate the market. The law of the market cannot be
sabotaged. It is self-regulated, because the unspecified and mysterious market process
ensures that demands are reconciled to supplies, and that despite the lack of intention of
the butcher to benefit the consumer of meat, the benefit is delivered. One would suppose
that a model of competition among  numerous individuals would give some insight into the
working of the invisible hand.
 
It is possible that Walras could have supposed that his general equilibrium model
accounted for everything to understand the market mechanism, so no invisible elements were
left out. The invisible hand is not a favorite hero to Walrasians. It is however a major
divinity to the Brahmin-like puritans known as the Austrian School.
 
It is also very mysterious to suppose that palpable intention of the agents could be
described as invisible. To be sure Smith was not as adamant a subjectivist as Menger was,
but he surely was very vocal about the 'self-interest' of the agent. I would be happily
dreaming a daydream if self-interest becomes invisible.
    
If the term was a metaphor, I could  feel safe that Menger and Mises and Hayek and Kirzner
and Coase would still keep their jobs.
    
Now, does it mean I have just lost mine? 
 
Mohammad Gani 
  
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]