Someone posted this link in one of the common forum in response to a "complaint" (which was actually set of observations mixed with his own editorial comments)...
http://www.livemint.com/Articles/2008/08/13234230/Taking-responsibility.html
The link has some great reading... However, I hold a view that I'm not sure if its complementary, alternate, contradictory or supplementary to that...
Perhaps some economist expert can explain better, what Adam Smith meant. On the other end of the spectrum (to the link above) was something expounded by Adam Smith in his book "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (terming the concept as invisible hand) - "There is a school of thought in economy which revolves around the idea that every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led to promote an end which was not part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was not part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it"...
(which in turn you see, Russel Crowe, as John Nash, say "Adam Smith is wrong" in the bar, when he and his friends all try to hit on a same women in a bar).
Through this, I'm not saying I'm for or on either side of the spectrum. Given this continuum, I believe people generally think of/about and do what is right for themselves and the society at large. Very few people pick just one (either). If they say so, they are perhaps not telling the truth - that goes for both end of the spectrum, imo.
