在经济学史上，很少有比“看不见的手”更经常被误解和误用的概念。为此，我们主要要感谢这个短语的发明者：18世纪的苏格兰经济学家亚当·史密斯，在他的有影响力的著作《道德情感理论》中。更重要的是国家的财富。在1759年出版的《道德情操论》中，史密斯描述了富有的个人是如何“被一只看不见的手牵着去分配几乎相同的生活必需品，如果地球被划分成所有居民中平等的部分，那么生活必需品就会得到同样的分配，因此，史密斯认识到富人并非生活在真空中：他们需要支付（并由此喂养）种植粮食、制造家庭用品的个人，以及为他们的仆人辛劳。简单地说，他们不能为自己保留所有的钱！到1776年出版的《国富论》一书时，史密斯已经大大概括了他的“看不见的手”的概念：一个富有的个人，通过以工业产品可能具有最大价值的方式“引导……工业，只想获得他自己的利益，而且他也是这样想的，就像在许多其它国家一样。史密斯说，为了减少18世纪华丽的语言，追求自私的人在市场上达到目的（例如，为他们的商品收取高价，或者支付尽可能少的费用）。（对工人有利）实际上在不知不觉中促成了一个更大的经济模式，在这个模式中，每个人都受益，穷人和富人。你大概可以看到我们要做什么。很天真，从表面上看，“看不见的手”是反对自由市场监管的通用论据。工厂主是否低估了员工的工资，让他们长时间工作，强迫他们住在不合格的住房里？“看不见的手”最终将纠正这种不公平，因为市场正在自我纠正，雇主别无选择，只能提供更好的工资和福利，或者倒闭。而且，这只看不见的手不仅会伸出援手，而且会比政府强加的任何“自上而下”的规定（比如，一项规定加班要付半小时工资的法律）更加合理、公平和有效。“看不见的手”真的有用吗？在亚当·史密斯撰写《国富论》时，英国正处于世界历史上经济规模最大的扩张的边缘，这场“工业革命”使英国遍布工厂和工厂（并导致广泛的财富和普遍的贫穷）。当你身处其中的时候，很难理解一个历史现象，事实上，历史学家和经济学家今天仍在争论工业革命的近因（和长期影响）。
澳大利亚新南威尔士大学经济学Essay代写:道德情感理论
In the history of economics, few concepts have been misunderstood and misused more often than the “invisible hand”. To this end, we would like to thank the inventor of this phrase: Adam Smith, an 18th century Scottish economist, in his influential book The Theory of Moral Emotions. More importantly, the wealth of the country. In the book Moral Sentiments, published in 1759, Smith describes how wealthy individuals are “held by an invisible hand to distribute almost the same necessities of life. If the earth is divided into equal parts of all the inhabitants, the necessities of life will be equally distributed. So Smith realizes that Rich people do not live in a vacuum: they need to pay (and feed) individuals who grow food, make household goods, and work hard for their servants. Simply put, they can’t keep all the money for themselves! By the time he published The Wealth of Nations in 1776, Smith had outlined his concept of an invisible hand: a wealthy individual who “guides” in a way that industrial products may have the greatest value. Industry only wants its own interests, and he thinks so, just like in many other countries. Smith said that in order to reduce the gorgeous language of the 18th century, selfish people achieved their goals in the market (for example, charging high prices for their goods, or paying as little as possible). (Benefiting workers) In fact, unconsciously contributed to a larger economic model in which everyone benefited, the poor and the rich. You can probably see what we’re going to do. Naively, on the surface, the “invisible hand” is a general argument against free market regulation. Are factory owners underestimating employees’wages, making them work long hours and forcing them to live in substandard housing? The “invisible hand” will eventually correct this injustice, as the market is self-correcting and employers have no choice but to provide better wages and benefits or fail. Moreover, this invisible hand will not only lend a helping hand, but also be more reasonable, fair and effective than any “top-down” regulation imposed by the government (for example, a law that requires half-hour pay for overtime). Is the invisible hand really useful? When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, Britain was on the verge of the largest economic expansion in world history. This “industrial revolution” spread factories and factories throughout Britain (and led to widespread wealth and widespread poverty). It’s hard to understand a historical phenomenon when you’re in it. In fact, historians and economists are still debating the proximity (and long-term impact) of the industrial revolution today.