Presenting: The Invisible Hand of Human Dharma Part 1

Separating Samuelson

Our proposed science of SORAnomics is derived almost entirely from The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and is fundamentally different from the current science of Economics which is completely objective in nature. For example, Economics targets specific, numerical goals like 10% GDP or 4% inflation and then imposes them on people.

SORAnomics on the other hand, balances the objective with the subjective. It asks what the people want to achieve in the first place, and then creates its objectives from them, implemented as a resource allocation system. This is how all economic activity happens anyway, that is, no one wants to be forced to do something that is against their own interests. That’s why SORA means Social Resource Allocation which physically manifests as a social network. This network can then work according to the invisible hand, which is one of Smith’s most famous ideas. It forms the core of our entire system as it leads to division of labour which then sustains human societies throughout its different cycles.

Everything in an economy is derived from the collective work done by humans and even work animals.

As it is so fundamental, an explanation on this invisible hand is required. The first step is to start with a blank slate and separate the popular definition of the invisible hand done by Paul Samuelson in his textbook Economics:

Smith proclaimed the principle of the ‘invisible hand’. It says that every individual, in selfishly pursuing only his or her personal good, is led, as if by an invisible hand, to achieve the best good for all. (Samuelson)
All ‘economic’ systems crash because its main scripture was corrupt to begin with, or what we call ‘adharmic’ (in our metaphysical system, there is no good or bad, just ‘dharmic’ or ‘adharmic’)

Of course, that is a plain fallacy, since Smith pointed to sympathy and benevolence, which are the opposites of selfishness, as the substance that keeps the machine called society running smoothly. Samuelson merely cherry-picked Smith’s views on selfishness without pointing out that it was a very minor and common sense view:

Regard to our own private happiness and interest often appear as very laudable principles of action. The habits of oeconomy, industry, discretion, attention, and application of thought, are generally supposed to be cultivated from self-interested motives. These habits are seen as very praise-worthy qualities.. Our instinct for self-preservation instructs us to take proper care of our health, life, or fortune. A person who fails in this would be pitied instead of hated. Carelessness and want of oeconomy are universally disapproved of because it shows a lack of attention to the objects of self-interest and not because of the lack of benevolence. (Simplified Chap. 3: Systems which make Virtue consist in Benevolence)
Human creatures should be more careful and attentive (have attention to the self). This does not mean that they should be selfish

In a previous post, I mentioned that successive generations tend to usurp and corrupt original ideas of the past in order to suit their own current experiences. For example, Christianity and Islam were usurped several times to create different Christian and Islamic sects. In Economics, Smith’s ideas were corrupted to suit neo-liberal goals. So, to correct such mistakes we put Samuelson’s wrong interpretation of Smith’s invisible hand as Samuelson’s own idea and name it as Sameulson’s hand, different from the Invisible Hand by Adam Smith.

Now that we have a blank slate, I will discuss my interpretation of Smith’s concept as the Invisible Hand of Dharma in subsequent posts. In the meantime, feel free to join our Facebook group for more information.