----------------- 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]