Of course, the TMS passage is not what I was writing about. I would refer the the following passage in WON:

"But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he 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 was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it." Book 4, chapter 2.

In light of the brewer statement (i.e., the butcher, brewer and baker statement -- Book 1, chapter 2), and other statements about self interest in WON, it seems to me that this invisible hand statement can be transferred seamlessly to the domestic economy without compromising Smith's intended meaning. Thus, it seems to me that attacks on the traditional view of Smith's meaning of the invisible hand (e.g., that it is mythology) are misguided and possibly wishful.


Pat Gunning