Adam Smith’s laissez-faire defines national wealth not as the accumulation of gold and silver, but as the total amount of everyday goods produced and enjoyed by the people. It is an economic philosophy that holds prosperity is possible when government intervention is minimized and the autonomous order of the market is allowed to operate.
1776, Overturning the Concept of National Wealth
Published in 1776, The Wealth of Nations fundamentally changed the standard by which national wealth was understood. Before that, a wealthy nation was considered one that possessed large amounts of gold and silver.
He asked a question:
“If a country has a lot of gold, does that mean its people eat better, live warmer, and enjoy greater convenience?”
With that single question, the direction of thinking shifted. The standard of wealth moved away from gold locked in vaults to the things people actually use and consume in their daily lives.
Wealth Measured by Living Standards, Not Gold
He saw a wealthy nation not as one rich in precious metals, but as one where people enjoy various everyday goods and conveniences.
Consider this. Even if a country is filled with gold, if its citizens wear worn-out clothes, lack sufficient food, and live in uncomfortable houses, can it truly be called wealthy? On the other hand, even without much gold, if people drive cars, communicate through smartphones, live in warm homes, and conveniently access hospitals and restaurants, wouldn’t that society be more prosperous?
For him, wealth was not gold stored in warehouses, but the items people use daily and the conveniences they enjoy.
Production as the Source of Prosperity
Naturally, another question follows.
What is needed to raise people’s standard of living?
The answer is clear. More goods and everyday conveniences must be produced. When labor is efficiently organized through division of labor and people can exchange freely, output increases.
Once the standard of wealth shifts to “living standards,” attention automatically moves to “productive capacity.” The key is not accumulating gold, but how well and how much a society produces and exchanges.
The Emergence of a Radical Solution
Then how can production be maximized?
Many would have thought the government must design and control the system. But his answer was different. Let the market move on its own.
If production—not gold—is the core, then one must understand what truly drives production.
The Order Created by Self-Interest
Here enters the concept of self-interest. He argued that the pursuit of private interest does not destroy social order but actually forms it.
People do not work to help others; they work for their own benefit. Yet in order to gain that benefit, they must provide what others want. Through this process, exchange naturally occurs, production expands, and competition emerges. Shall we look at an example?
The Example of a Local Pizza Shop
The owner of a neighborhood pizza shop makes pizza not for the public good, but to earn profit. However, customers make their choices based on taste, price, and quality. If the shop fails to offer tastier and more reasonably priced products, customers naturally turn to another store.
In the end, the owner’s private pursuit of profit leads to improvements in quality and efficiency. Self-interest operates in a way that stimulates consumer satisfaction.
The Example of Competition in the Smartphone Market
Smartphone companies are no different. Each firm continuously improves technology to increase market share and profits. Competition takes place in processor speed, camera performance, battery efficiency, and more.
Consumers choose better products, their choices reshape company strategies, and innovation is stimulated again. Companies that fall behind see declining sales and eventually lose their place in the market.
How Competition Creates Order
None of this happens because someone above commands it. Through the repeated interaction between consumer choice and producer response, the market finds its own balance.
Competition, which may appear chaotic, actually functions as an invisible coordinating mechanism. This is precisely what Adam Smith referred to as the “invisible hand.”
A Minimal State, Maximum Freedom
This naturally leads to the question of government’s role. If the market forms order on its own, what should the state do?
His answer was clear. The government should focus on maintaining basic order.
Rather than setting the prices of goods in the market, it should focus on catching thieves who steal those goods. Instead of deciding what producers should make, the state should ensure that contracts are honored and property rights are protected.
The Concept of the Night-Watchman State
Let us learn a term here: what is a “night-watchman state”?
It refers to a government that remains at the level of preventing crime and maintaining basic order. Like a guard patrolling at night, it is responsible only for minimum safety and legal order.
The driving force of the economy is not the state. It is market participants. Let me say it again: the economy is not moved by the government, but by us. It could be you or me. When we press the buy and sell buttons in the stock market, when we compare prices in a supermarket before placing items in our cart, we ourselves are the market. Remember that.
Who Determines Prices?
Prices are not set by government command but formed through the interaction of supply and demand. When one person thinks something is expensive and another thinks it is affordable, trade occurs at that point.
This process moves resources to where they are most needed.
The Dynamism Created by Freedom
When individuals are free to produce and exchange, the economy gains vitality. Excessive intervention distorts the flow, while autonomy encourages creativity and efficiency.
In the end, his claim is simple.
Do not try to control people; protect order.
Then the market will move on its own.
1 thought on “Adam Smith’s Laissez-Faire – The Story of Economy”
Comments are closed.