Yes, it was Adam’s fault. Did he have to take a bite out of the apple (at least, popular belief is that it was an apple) which Eve handed him? Or some might accuse Eve, for offering him the apple. Yet some might blame the serpent who tempted Eve. Talk of passing the buck!

Anyway, Eve knew and Adam knew that they were not supposed to eat of the forbidden fruit, but they did. Problem is, they ended up being thrown out of the Garden of Eden and we’re still paying for it.

Imagine, we could have had the life. No work, no toil, nothing lacking, everything we would have wanted was there – okay, no forbidden fruit, true, but what a small price to pay. Now all of us have to work and toil, and the resources at our disposal do not suffice to satisfy our wants.

The problem of scarcity saw the light with Adam’s bite of the apple. Many have since grappled with the problem: if we cannot have everything, what can we have and what do we have to give up?

Easy answer! Obviously we make a choice and we give up the next best alternative. Adam made that choice with disastrous consequences: he chose to eat an apple and gave up the Garden of Eden. Some choice! That is opportunity cost at its costliest.

Through time, the problem of scarcity, choice and opportunity cost have been handled under different aspects. However, it is our forefather’s namesake who attempted to look at the problem in a more methodological manner, another Adam once again. But this time it was not Adam Figleaf, this time it was Adam Smith.

Smith believed in the invisible hand. The invisible hand is the hand which guides the actions of consumers, producers and other market players to achieve a harmonious equilibrium by pursuing their own aims. It is the same hand which guides our drivers on our roads without major pile-ups and roadside massacres. Indeed, our traffic situation is a thorough vindication of the existence of the invisible hand.

Smith is also known for his attestation of the division of labour . This involves the division of an activity into different specific tasks which may be performed separately from each other, and in which it is possible to specialise. He illustrated this with reference to a pin factory, where each worker had a different task – one to cut the wire, another to make the head, another to sharpen the metal and so on.

Smith was so impressed by this that he wrote about it in his book called "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" and went on to become the father of Economics. We may, therefore, know who the father is, but, as yet we have no idea as to who is the mother of Economics. Suggestions and proposals will be greatly appreciated.

Back to Top