As Adam Smith noted, the actions of private individuals pursuing their own self-interest frequently leads to public benefit only under several qualifications: among which is the precondition of personal and institutional civic ethics, along with the assumptions of an absence of spillover effects (externalities) and the presence of well-informed buyers and sellers. Despite the necessity of these often-unrealistic assumptions, the ‘Invisible Hand’ has worked exceedingly well in the market of business and monetary transactions. However, this market is not an isolated animal, and decisions made there affect, or spillover into, vi

It is almost needless to say that there are many spillover costs to the family associated with this trend, and this is where the often-unrealistic assumptions on which the market is based raise their ugly heads. If a couple still decides to have children, the standard arrangement is to share equally in domestic responsibility. However, this is more a compromise than a solution. Men try to weaken their dedication to their careers and women weaken theirs to family—a situation which more often than not leaves the family with the short end of the stick and opens potentially difficult questions such as ‘who goes with who’ if career paths lead in different directions. But most importantly, it leaves the question of caring for children largely unresolved. I wonder along with Allan Bloom, “Are both parents going to care more about their careers than about the children? Previously children at least had the unqualified dedication of one person, the woman, for whom their care was the most important thing in life. Is half the attention of two the same as the whole attention of one? Is this not a formula for neglecting children?” For the market to work for the social benefit, buyers and sellers must be informed, but this means considering long-term opportunity costs, like that of mothers raising children, when deciding to buy that bigger house, and therefore need that extra income. As usual, questions abound—is something lost when a child is raised by day care? Is that something more important than an extra income? How can one compare the worth of taking care of babies with money or material goods? Unfortunately, this is when the ‘Invisible Hand’ waves goodbye.

A father gave his son a puzzle of the world to work on and said, “Boy, try to put this puzzle together as fast as you can.” The father returned a short while later, and was surprised to see that his son had already finished. Upon asking him how he had managed to do the puzzle so quickly, the little boy answered, “Well, on the other side of the pieces is a picture of a man…and when I put the man together, the world turned out all right.”

rtually all aspects of public and private life. Moreover, in many of these other ‘markets’ of life, externalities abound and those who make the transactions are rarely well-enough informed, if for no other reason than the fact that good and bad are much less easily defined—the right decision may not necessarily be the one that maximizes profit and production. In these instances, popular economics and self-interest are simply incapable of determining the best course of action. I will argue that, in recent decades, market forces have adversely affected two particularly important aspects of life—civic engagement and the family. Ultimately, I hope t

Some topics in this essay:
Adam Smith, Allan Bloom, University Chicago, Corner Store, Robert Putnam, , War II, Fulton Sheen, Stuart Mill, VCR DVD�not, civic engagement, spillover costs, ‘invisible hand’, spillover effects, buyers sellers, labor force, staring inanimate object, loss civic, individual people, often-unrealistic assumptions, allan bloom, loss civic engagement,