Hidden away in chapter II of The Wealth of the Nations, dedicated to motivation of the division of work -and in connection with it- the theory of the invisible hand is explicitly formulated that, according to the most widespread interpretation which I consider erroneous, through the search for one's own interest, general interest is achieved.

Man does not obtain the assistance that he needs from his fellow men because of other people's benevolence but because of other people's selfishness in his favour: "It is not the butcher's, brewer's or baker's kindness that offers us food, but the consideration of their own interests. We do not invoke their humanitarian feelings but their selfishness." and A. Smith adds: "In a tribe of hunters or shepherds he who most rapidly and capably makes the bows or arrows, exchanges them for livestock or for game(...)Pursuing his own interest he devotes himself almost exclusively to making bows and arrows."

The popularisation of these passages has led us to generalize the statement that pursuing one's own interest the interest of others is obtained. The market produces efficiency as a positive secondary effect in spite of not including the general good as an objective of the process, but only the individual selfish good.

The economic individuals pursuing their own interests and profit are led by the invisible hand of the market and competition to produce efficiently and sell at a balanced price. Through the forces of the market, the increase of one's own profit becomes a social good.

Following Koslowski in this description, we can say that the more radicalised version of this fact for Mandeville even led to the statement that private bad habits are public advantages. Even immoral and vicious motives become goods, with positive secondary effects. For the invisible hand of the market an ethically rejectable selfish conduct, becomes socially advantageous behaviour. Mephistopheles in Goethe's Faust outlines statements that resemble those at the beginning of Mandeville: It forms part of that power that always seeks to concoct evil and it ends up creating good." It is not necessary to want to do good, because it arises anyway as an effect of selfish motives. This pursuit of one's own interest in exchange would give rise, by mysterious combinations, to the consecution of widespread interest. The cunning of reason in history, proclaimed by Hegel, that is able to carry out its objectives in the end after an undercover process, and in spite of men, would also manifest this paradox.

These reflections made aloud in Gaceta de los Negocios seek to introduce a nuance, in my decisive opinion, of this paradox. A nuance that, in fact, produces the effect of rotating the main argument a hundred and eighty degrees.

The nature of the phenomenon of exchange and the market is such that the authentic invisible hand is fulfilled precisely the other way around: the pursuit of private selfish interest does not produce general positive interest but exactly the contrary: The components of economic value are such and are manifested in such a way in conventional exchanges that the pursuit of other people's positive interest brings, as a consequence, an increase in my own private value.

In a Crusonian economy, without exchange, the process is clear since in this situation the invisible hand works to perfection in both directions. Social interest coincides with individual interest. There is only a discrepancy between the objective and subjective goals, but when only one individual exists, the pursuit of his own interest only coincides with the pursuit of the community interest.

Let us examine now, attentively, the situation when multiple proprietors and numerous commercial exchanges exist. The value in use begins to be differentiated from the exchange value and the possibility of specialisation of the agents begins. Each one will tend to specialize in that which he has an advantage, even a comparative advantage. In this way the productive capacity of each one will increase and therefore, they will both have a greater quantity available. Although the exchange value remains invariable, the value in use of both will increase.

However, with specialization and exchange the purposes of my work are no longer marked by me, but by the potential client. If I specialize in making bows or arrows, I manufacture those bows or arrows with the intention of selling them to others, not of using them myself. The quality, weight, texture, size and other characteristics of the bow and arrows are indicated to me by others. It would be absurd not to manufacture what the others prefer because it is for them. The more and better the potential buyer's service is sought, the more will I increase my own patrimony. Looking for the buyer's profit, I am able to improve my own profit. A specialised hunter and fisherman, working for exchange, will try to hunt and fish the specimens preferred by the other, once their own hunting and fishing necessities are covered. Being interested in the preferences of the other, he will better be able to obtain his own. If we change the order, the positive effect is impaired. If the hunter looks for the specimens that he prefers instead of those that the fisherman prefers, the exchange value and, in the end, the value in use, is demeaned.

In a modern economy, with high specialization and high degree of commercial exchanges, adaptation to the subjective purposes of the potential clients gives rise, in consequence, to the easiest attainment of one's own ones. If in my productive performance the selfish search for my own preferences is my priority, my patrimony is devaluated. We can say then, that the invisible hand consists of discovering that my interest is favoured as an effect of the pursuit of other people's interest.

There is no doubt that, these budgets of the economic organism being known, we can also point out that looking out for my own interest I look for general interest. However, I consider more appropriate the contrary formulation, because if habitually, my efforts are concentrated on the search for other people's profit, the increase of my own profit is automatic. It is not necessary to think about it. If habitually I concentrate on the pursuit of my own interests I end up awarding others erroneously, their own ones.

Formulating terminologically the process of one form or another, the true fact is that: given property, exchange and specialization and therefore, an appreciable degree of freedom, the value of a physical and human patrimony is increased notably according to its degree of service, according to its capacity of service to other's subjective objectives in the first place, and to other people's service in the longer term. The capacity of service is constituted in the definitive characteristic of economic realities with regard to their value in highly specialised systems and voluntary exchange. And Ethics appear as a requirement not only advisable but also substantially indispensable to adapt our personal ultimate aspirations to the truly appropriate ones.

Joseph John Franch Menéu
Gaceta de los Negocios, Monday November 29th 1993