In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith articulates our innate desire for a “mutual sympathy of sentiments.” Essentially, we crave agreement, not just from others but also within ourselves. Smith initially explored this notion of our continuous pursuit of cooperation in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, before broadening his vision to the intricacies of commercial society in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. The ramifications were revolutionary: they laid the groundwork for complex divisions of labor and knowledge, culminating in the prosperity we witness today.
Each bid and ask in a marketplace is, in essence, a solicitation for cooperation through mutual understanding. While such offers can be dismissed by those who do not share the same values, every exchange presents a sacred opportunity to collaborate for mutual benefit.
Of course, universal agreement is not a prerequisite; dissent is abundant. The charm of a commercial society lies in its indifference to this disagreement. Only the trading partners need to find common ground. Admittedly, there are exceptions for coercion and deceit, but a voluntarily negotiated exchange signifies an effort to forge mutual understanding and a joint vision for a better future.
Bloggers and economists Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok aptly titled their blog Marginal Revolution with the tagline “small steps toward a better world.” This perfectly encapsulates the essence of every transaction: a minor stride toward improvement as perceived by the individuals involved. When Mary swaps her apples for Burt’s oranges, it reflects their shared vision of a world where Mary enjoys more oranges and Burt benefits from more apples. While it may seem trivial, it is indeed a meaningful step. In a global population of 8.5 billion, such exchanges amount to trillions of incremental advancements toward a shared betterment through understanding and collaboration.
Raymond Tallis has characterized our evolving world as the result of “trillions of cognitive handshakes,” each occurring due to a shared aspiration for a brighter future. Each agreement is a wager on a better tomorrow, positioning individuals to make even more advantageous bets for that envisioned future.
Not every cognitive handshake signifies that individuals are elevating themselves, thriving, and living well. Yet, we must take the good with the bad, acknowledging both beneficial and less advantageous elements. It is crucial to recognize that disrupting these cognitive connections can pose a serious risk, potentially obstructing individuals from realizing their shared vision for a better world.
This is not to suggest that government intervention is the solution. Every political agreement is rooted in a collective sentiment about actions to be enforced upon others. This often lacks dignity and fails to respect the freedom and dignity of those whose choices may not align with our own. Political agreements are frequently pursued under the guise of solving problems we might not fully understand. As economists, instead of hastily labeling actions as “well, that’s foolish,” we should instead inquire, “what issue does this resolve? What objective does this fulfill?” Even if we disagree with their vision for a better world, we should scrutinize our instinct to interfere. Next time you find yourself in the grocery store, consider this perspective: every item on those shelves represents an effort to cultivate mutual understanding and a shared dream of a better world. While it may not align with your vision, it holds significance for someone—and that is what truly matters.
