Today’s word of the day, thanks to The Dictionary Project is accede. Accede is a verb that means “to give one’s consent, often yielding to another’s demands; to assent; to agree” or “to attain or take on the duties of an office, title or rank” or “to become a participant in a treaty or agreement.” It entered the language in the “early 15c., from Latin accedere ‘approach, go to, come near, enter upon,’ from assimilated form of ad ‘to’ (see ad-) + cedere ‘go, move, withdraw’ (from PIE root *ked- ‘to go, yield’). Latin ad– usually became ac– before ‘k’ sounds.” Assimilation is a process of sound change whereby a sound changes to become more similar to a nearby sound. Such changes frequently happen in order to make it easier to speak the sounds.

There are quite a few words that derive from the Latin cedere “go, move, withdraw”: precede, secede, proceed, succeed, exceed, accede, concede, recede, intercede…. Some of them end with –cede and others with –ceed. The ones that came into the language during the Middle English period and then into Early Modern English are the –ceed words; the ones that end with –cede came into Early Modern English directly from Latin or from Latin through French, though in some cases the word entered the language much later. There is almost a dividing line, the year 1500, that seems to determine the spelling.

The year 1776 means a lot to Americans. When we think of that year, we automatically think of July 4^th and the signing of the Declaration of Independence. But another significant event took place in that year, on this date: the publication of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.

Adam Smith (1723-1790) was a Scottish philosopher and economist who was “a key figure during the Scottish Enlightenment” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith). He is best know for An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, but he also wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), a much under-read classic. He studied at Glasgow University, and went on to Oxford. He didn’t stay at Oxford because he felt that the instruction he received there was not as good as what he had had at Glasgow: “In Book V of The Wealth of Nations, Smith comments on the low quality of instruction and the meager intellectual activity at English universities, when compared to their Scottish counterparts. He attributes this both to the rich endowments of the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, which made the income of professors independent of their ability to attract students, and to the fact that distinguished men of letters could make an even more comfortable living as ministers of the Church of England” (ibid.).

To some extent, The Wealth of Nations was a critique of what we now refer to as mercantilism: “Mercantilism is a nationalist economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports for an economy. In other words, it seeks to maximize the accumulation of resources within the country and use those resources for one-sided trade” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism). Mercantilism is still a popular economic theory, as you can witness in the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump during his presidency, tariffs that were sold as an America First policy.

It is in Book 4 of his classic that he makes a reference to one of the most recognized metaphors: “As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. (Book 4, Chapter 2)” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations).

In other words, when each individual acts in accordance with their own self-interest, they also promote the interest of the community or society or nation or world in which they live: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely” (https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/adam-smith-butcher-brewer-baker).

Free-market capitalism has had a profound impact on the world. Extreme poverty, which is defined as living on less than $1.90/day, has gone from well over 90% to under 10% in the last 250 years, since the publication of The Wealth of Nations. Economist Robert P. Murphy writes, “It was precisely the ‘lower classes’ who benefited the most from the economic progress unleashed in the so-called Industrial Revolution and beyond. Yes, the ‘captains of industry’ personally became quite rich, but the rise of big business primarily benefited the working class. After all, the titans of industry engaged in ‘mass production’ in order to sell products to… the masses” (https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism/).

But there are many today who do not recognize the value of free-market capitalism, not only in terms of economic benefits but also in terms of human freedom. The key to understanding why the invisible hand is so much more effective than individuals or the state at planning the economy is that there are so many things to consider that no one individual or group of individuals can possibly take it all into account. It is called spontaneous order, the idea “that most of those things of general benefit in a social system are the product of spontaneous forces that are beyond the direct control of man” (https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/LtrLbrty/bryTSO.html). But spontaneous order is scary to a lot of people, people who think the smart people should be in charge of everything to make the best decisions. It is hard for some people to imagine that spontaneous order can produce better results than they can, but history seems to have proved them wrong.

Perhaps we should all be humble enough to accede to the reality that there is wisdom in crowds.

The image today is a chart showing per capita GDP (Gross Domestic Product per person) since 1000 CE. (https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism/).