Peut-on expliquer comment la métaphore de la "main invisible" chez Smith s'articule avec sa critique des restrictions commerciales et son rejet du mercantilisme ?
Book IV: Of Systems of political Economy

Smith vigorously attacked the antiquated government restrictions he thought hindered industrial expansion. In fact, he attacked most forms of government interference in the economic process, including tariffs, arguing that this creates inefficiency and high prices in the long run. It is believed that this theory influenced government legislation in later years, especially during the 19th century.

Smith advocated a government that was active in sectors other than the economy. He advocated public education for poor adults, a judiciary, and a standing army—institutional systems not directly profitable for private industries.

Of the Principle of the Commercial or Mercantile System: The book has sometimes been described as a critique of mercantilism and a synthesis of the emerging economic thinking of Smith's time. Specifically, The Wealth of Nations attacks, inter alia, two major tenets of mercantilism:

Of Restraints upon the Importation: Chapter 2's full title is "Of Restraints upon the Importation from Foreign Countries of such Goods as can be Produced at Home". The " invisible hand " is a frequently referenced theme from the book, although it is specifically mentioned only once.

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)

The metaphor of the "invisible hand" has been widely used out of context. In the passage above Smith is referring to "the support of domestic industry" and contrasting that support with the importation of goods. Neoclassical economic theory has expanded the metaphor beyond the domestic/foreign manufacture argument to encompass nearly all aspects of economics.

Of the extraordinary Restraints: Chapter 3's long title is "Of the extraordinary Restraints upon the Importation of Goods of almost all Kinds, from those Countries with which the Balance is supposed to be Disadvantageous".

Of Drawbacks: Merchants and manufacturers are not contented with the monopoly of the home market, but desire likewise the most extensive foreign sale for their goods. Their country has no jurisdiction in foreign nations, and therefore can seldom procure them any monopoly there. They are generally obliged, therefore, to content themselves with petitioning for certain encouragements to exportation.

Of these encouragements what are called Drawbacks seem to be the most reasonable. To allow the merchant to draw back upon exportation, either the whole or a part of whatever excise or inland duty is imposed upon domestic industry, can never occasion the exportation of a greater quantity of goods than what would have been exported had no duty been imposed. Such encouragements do not tend to turn towards any particular employment a greater share of the capital of the country than what would go to that employment of its own accord, but only to hinder the duty from driving away any part of that shares to other employments.

Of Bounties: Bounties upon exportation are, in Great Britain, frequently petitioned for, and sometimes granted to the produce of particular branches of domestic industry. By means of them our merchants and manufacturers, it is pretended, will be enabled to sell their goods as cheap, or cheaper than their rivals in the foreign market. A greater quantity, it is said, will thus be exported, and the balance of trade consequently turned more in favour of our own country. We cannot give our workmen a monopoly in the foreign as we have done in the home market. We cannot force foreigners to buy their goods as we have done our own countrymen. The next best expedient, it has been thought, therefore, is to pay them for buying. It is in this manner that the mercantile system proposes to enrich the whole country, and to put money into all our pockets by means of the balance of trade.

Of Treaties of Commerce:

When a nation binds itself by treaty either to permit the entry of certain goods from one foreign country which it prohibits from all others, or to exempt the goods of one country from duties to which it subjects those of all others, the country, or at least the merchants and manufacturers of the country, whose commerce is so favoured, must necessarily derive great advantage from the treaty. Those merchants and manufacturers enjoy a sort of monopoly in the country which is so indulgent to them. That country becomes a market both more extensive and more advantageous for their goods: more extensive, because the goods of other nations being either excluded or subjected to heavier duties, it takes off a greater quantity of theirs: more advantageous, because the merchants of the favoured country, enjoying a sort of monopoly there, will often sell their goods for a better price than if exposed to the free competition of all other nations.Such treaties, however, though they may be advantageous to the merchants and manufacturers of the favoured, are necessarily disadvantageous to those of the favouring country. A monopoly is thus granted against them to a foreign nation; and they must frequently buy the foreign goods they have occasion for dearer than if the free competition of other nations was admitted.

Of Colonies:

Of the Motives for establishing new Colonies:

The interest which occasioned the first settlement of the different European colonies in America and the West Indies was not altogether so plain and distinct as that which directed the establishment of those of ancient Greece and Rome.All the different states of ancient Greece possessed, each of them, but a very small territory, and when the people in any one of them multiplied beyond what that territory could easily maintain, a part of them were sent in quest of a new habitation in some remote and distant part of the world; warlike neighbours surrounded them on all sides, rendering it difficult for any of them to enlarge their territory at home. The colonies of the Dorians resorted chiefly to Italy and Sicily, which, in the times preceding the foundation of Rome, were inhabited by barbarous and uncivilised nations: those of the Ionians and Eolians, the two other great tribes of the Greeks, to Asia Minor and the islands of the Egean Sea, of which the inhabitants seem at that time to have been pretty much in the same state as those of Sicily and Italy. The mother city, though she considered the colony as a child, at all times entitled to great favour and assistance, and owing in return much gratitude and respect, yet considered it as an emancipated child over whom she pretended to claim no direct authority or jurisdiction. The colony settled its own form of government, enacted its own laws, elected its own magistrates, and made peace or war with its neighbours as an independent state, which had no occasion to wait for the approbation or consent of the mother city. Nothing can be more plain and distinct than the interest which directed every such establishment.

Causes of Prosperity of new Colonies:

The colony of a civilised nation which takes possession either of a waste country, or of one so thinly inhabited that the natives easily give place to the new settlers, advances more rapidly to wealth and greatness than any other human society.The colonists carry out with them a knowledge of agriculture and of other useful arts superior to what can grow up of its own accord in the course of many centuries among savage and barbarous nations. They carry out with them, too, the habit of subordination, some notion of the regular government which takes place in their own country, of the system of laws which supports it, and of a regular administration of justice; and they naturally establish something of the same kind in the new settlement.

Of the Advantages which Europe has derived from the Discovery of America, and from that of a Passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope:

Such are the advantages which the colonies of America have derived from the policy of Europe. What are those which Europe has derived from the discovery and colonisation of America? Those advantages may be divided, first, into the general advantages which Europe, considered as one great country, has derived from those great events; and, secondly, into the particular advantages which each colonising country has derived from the colonies which particularly belong to it, in consequence of the authority or dominion which it exercises over them.:

The general advantages which Europe, considered as one great country, has derived from the discovery and colonisation of America, consist, first, in the increase of its enjoyments; and, secondly, in the augmentation of its industry.

The surplus produce of America, imported into Europe, furnishes the inhabitants of this great continent with a variety of commodities which they could not otherwise have possessed; some for conveniency and use, some for pleasure, and some for ornament, and thereby contributes to increase their enjoyments.

Conclusion of the Mercantile System: Smith's argument about the international political economy opposed the idea of mercantilism. While the Mercantile System encouraged each country to hoard gold, while trying to grasp hegemony, Smith argued that free trade eventually makes all actors better off. This argument is the modern 'Free Trade' argument.

Of the Agricultural Systems: Chapter 9's long title is "Of the Agricultural Systems, or of those Systems of Political Economy, which Represent the Produce of Land, as either the Sole or the Principal, Source of the Revenue and Wealth of Every Country".

That system which represents the produce of land as the sole source of the revenue and wealth of every country has, so far as by that time, never been adopted by any nation, and it at present exists only in the speculations of a few men of great learning and ingenuity in France. It would not, surely, be worthwhile to examine at great length the errors of a system which never has done, and probably never will do, any harm in any part of the world.
La main invisible est une métaphore inspirée du philosophe moral écossais Adam Smith qui décrit les incitations que les marchés libres créent parfois pour que des individus poursuivant leurs propres intérêts agissent involontairement dans l'intérêt public. Smith a mentionné le terme à l'origine dans deux exemples économiques spécifiques, mais différents. Il l'utilise une fois dans son *Théorie des sentiments moraux* en discutant d'un exemple hypothétique de concentration de la richesse entre les mains d'une seule personne, qui la gaspille, mais emploie ainsi d'autres personnes. Plus célèbre encore, il l'utilise également une fois dans son *Richesse des nations*, en argumentant que les gouvernements n'ont généralement pas besoin de forcer les commerçants internationaux à investir dans leur propre pays. Dans *La Théorie des sentiments moraux* (1759) et dans *La Richesse des nations* (1776), Adam Smith parle d'une « main invisible », et non de la « main invisible ». Allant bien au-delà de l'intention originale de la métaphore de Smith, les économistes du XXe siècle, en particulier Paul Samuelson, ont popularisé l'utilisation du terme pour désigner une conclusion plus générale et abstraite selon laquelle les marchés véritablement libres sont des systèmes autorégulateurs qui créent des résultats économiquement optimaux, que l'intervention gouvernementale ne peut pas améliorer. L'idée que le commerce et l'échange de marché canalisent parfaitement l'intérêt personnel vers des fins socialement souhaitables est une justification centrale des versions plus récentes de la philosophie économique du *laissez-faire* qui sous-tendent l'économie néoclassique. Dans un contexte de discussion plus générale sur la science, Smith lui-même a décrit les explications de « main invisible » comme typiques d'une discussion non scientifique. Il ne l'a jamais utilisée pour désigner un principe général de l'économie. Ses arguments contre les interventions gouvernementales dans les marchés étaient basés sur des cas spécifiques et n'étaient pas absolus. En mettant de côté la « main invisible » elle-même, bien que les différentes manières dont Smith présentait le cas contre la gestion économique par le gouvernement aient été très influentes, elles n'étaient pas nouvelles non plus. Smith lui-même cite des penseurs des Lumières antérieurs tels que Bernard Mandeville. L'argumentation de Smith sur la « main invisible » a peut-être également été influencée par Richard Cantillon et son modèle du domaine isolé. En raison de l'utilisation moderne de ce terme, il est devenu un raccourci pour désigner une hypothèse clé de l'économie néoclassique, et les désaccords entre les idéologies économiques sont désormais parfois considérés comme des désaccords sur le bon fonctionnement de la « main invisible ». Par exemple, on soutient que les tendances qui étaient naissantes à l'époque de Smith, telles que l'industrie à grande échelle, la finance et la publicité, ont réduit l'efficacité de la prétendue « main invisible ».
### Query ###
Peut-on expliquer comment la métaphore de la "main invisible" chez Smith s'articule avec sa critique des restrictions commerciales et son rejet du mercantilisme ?

### Main Text ###
Book IV: Of Systems of political Economy

Smith vigorously attacked the antiquated government restrictions he thought hindered industrial expansion. In fact, he attacked most forms of government interference in the economic process, including tariffs, arguing that this creates inefficiency and high prices in the long run. It is believed that this theory influenced government legislation in later years, especially during the 19th century.

Smith advocated a government that was active in sectors other than the economy. He advocated public education for poor adults, a judiciary, and a standing army—institutional systems not directly profitable for private industries.

Of the Principle of the Commercial or Mercantile System: The book has sometimes been described as a critique of mercantilism and a synthesis of the emerging economic thinking of Smith's time. Specifically, The Wealth of Nations attacks, inter alia, two major tenets of mercantilism:

Of Restraints upon the Importation: Chapter 2's full title is "Of Restraints upon the Importation from Foreign Countries of such Goods as can be Produced at Home". The " invisible hand " is a frequently referenced theme from the book, although it is specifically mentioned only once.

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)

The metaphor of the "invisible hand" has been widely used out of context. In the passage above Smith is referring to "the support of domestic industry" and contrasting that support with the importation of goods. Neoclassical economic theory has expanded the metaphor beyond the domestic/foreign manufacture argument to encompass nearly all aspects of economics.

Of the extraordinary Restraints: Chapter 3's long title is "Of the extraordinary Restraints upon the Importation of Goods of almost all Kinds, from those Countries with which the Balance is supposed to be Disadvantageous".

Of Drawbacks: Merchants and manufacturers are not contented with the monopoly of the home market, but desire likewise the most extensive foreign sale for their goods. Their country has no jurisdiction in foreign nations, and therefore can seldom procure them any monopoly there. They are generally obliged, therefore, to content themselves with petitioning for certain encouragements to exportation.

Of these encouragements what are called Drawbacks seem to be the most reasonable. To allow the merchant to draw back upon exportation, either the whole or a part of whatever excise or inland duty is imposed upon domestic industry, can never occasion the exportation of a greater quantity of goods than what would have been exported had no duty been imposed. Such encouragements do not tend to turn towards any particular employment a greater share of the capital of the country than what would go to that employment of its own accord, but only to hinder the duty from driving away any part of that shares to other employments.

Of Bounties: Bounties upon exportation are, in Great Britain, frequently petitioned for, and sometimes granted to the produce of particular branches of domestic industry. By means of them our merchants and manufacturers, it is pretended, will be enabled to sell their goods as cheap, or cheaper than their rivals in the foreign market. A greater quantity, it is said, will thus be exported, and the balance of trade consequently turned more in favour of our own country. We cannot give our workmen a monopoly in the foreign as we have done in the home market. We cannot force foreigners to buy their goods as we have done our own countrymen. The next best expedient, it has been thought, therefore, is to pay them for buying. It is in this manner that the mercantile system proposes to enrich the whole country, and to put money into all our pockets by means of the balance of trade.

Of Treaties of Commerce:

When a nation binds itself by treaty either to permit the entry of certain goods from one foreign country which it prohibits from all others, or to exempt the goods of one country from duties to which it subjects those of all others, the country, or at least the merchants and manufacturers of the country, whose commerce is so favoured, must necessarily derive great advantage from the treaty. Those merchants and manufacturers enjoy a sort of monopoly in the country which is so indulgent to them. That country becomes a market both more extensive and more advantageous for their goods: more extensive, because the goods of other nations being either excluded or subjected to heavier duties, it takes off a greater quantity of theirs: more advantageous, because the merchants of the favoured country, enjoying a sort of monopoly there, will often sell their goods for a better price than if exposed to the free competition of all other nations.Such treaties, however, though they may be advantageous to the merchants and manufacturers of the favoured, are necessarily disadvantageous to those of the favouring country. A monopoly is thus granted against them to a foreign nation; and they must frequently buy the foreign goods they have occasion for dearer than if the free competition of other nations was admitted.

Of Colonies:

Of the Motives for establishing new Colonies:

The interest which occasioned the first settlement of the different European colonies in America and the West Indies was not altogether so plain and distinct as that which directed the establishment of those of ancient Greece and Rome.All the different states of ancient Greece possessed, each of them, but a very small territory, and when the people in any one of them multiplied beyond what that territory could easily maintain, a part of them were sent in quest of a new habitation in some remote and distant part of the world; warlike neighbours surrounded them on all sides, rendering it difficult for any of them to enlarge their territory at home. The colonies of the Dorians resorted chiefly to Italy and Sicily, which, in the times preceding the foundation of Rome, were inhabited by barbarous and uncivilised nations: those of the Ionians and Eolians, the two other great tribes of the Greeks, to Asia Minor and the islands of the Egean Sea, of which the inhabitants seem at that time to have been pretty much in the same state as those of Sicily and Italy. The mother city, though she considered the colony as a child, at all times entitled to great favour and assistance, and owing in return much gratitude and respect, yet considered it as an emancipated child over whom she pretended to claim no direct authority or jurisdiction. The colony settled its own form of government, enacted its own laws, elected its own magistrates, and made peace or war with its neighbours as an independent state, which had no occasion to wait for the approbation or consent of the mother city. Nothing can be more plain and distinct than the interest which directed every such establishment.

Causes of Prosperity of new Colonies:

The colony of a civilised nation which takes possession either of a waste country, or of one so thinly inhabited that the natives easily give place to the new settlers, advances more rapidly to wealth and greatness than any other human society.The colonists carry out with them a knowledge of agriculture and of other useful arts superior to what can grow up of its own accord in the course of many centuries among savage and barbarous nations. They carry out with them, too, the habit of subordination, some notion of the regular government which takes place in their own country, of the system of laws which supports it, and of a regular administration of justice; and they naturally establish something of the same kind in the new settlement.

Of the Advantages which Europe has derived from the Discovery of America, and from that of a Passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope:

Such are the advantages which the colonies of America have derived from the policy of Europe. What are those which Europe has derived from the discovery and colonisation of America? Those advantages may be divided, first, into the general advantages which Europe, considered as one great country, has derived from those great events; and, secondly, into the particular advantages which each colonising country has derived from the colonies which particularly belong to it, in consequence of the authority or dominion which it exercises over them.:

The general advantages which Europe, considered as one great country, has derived from the discovery and colonisation of America, consist, first, in the increase of its enjoyments; and, secondly, in the augmentation of its industry.

The surplus produce of America, imported into Europe, furnishes the inhabitants of this great continent with a variety of commodities which they could not otherwise have possessed; some for conveniency and use, some for pleasure, and some for ornament, and thereby contributes to increase their enjoyments.

Conclusion of the Mercantile System: Smith's argument about the international political economy opposed the idea of mercantilism. While the Mercantile System encouraged each country to hoard gold, while trying to grasp hegemony, Smith argued that free trade eventually makes all actors better off. This argument is the modern 'Free Trade' argument.

Of the Agricultural Systems: Chapter 9's long title is "Of the Agricultural Systems, or of those Systems of Political Economy, which Represent the Produce of Land, as either the Sole or the Principal, Source of the Revenue and Wealth of Every Country".

That system which represents the produce of land as the sole source of the revenue and wealth of every country has, so far as by that time, never been adopted by any nation, and it at present exists only in the speculations of a few men of great learning and ingenuity in France. It would not, surely, be worthwhile to examine at great length the errors of a system which never has done, and probably never will do, any harm in any part of the world.

### Supplementary Text ###
La main invisible est une métaphore inspirée du philosophe moral écossais Adam Smith qui décrit les incitations que les marchés libres créent parfois pour que des individus poursuivant leurs propres intérêts agissent involontairement dans l'intérêt public. Smith a mentionné le terme à l'origine dans deux exemples économiques spécifiques, mais différents. Il l'utilise une fois dans son *Théorie des sentiments moraux* en discutant d'un exemple hypothétique de concentration de la richesse entre les mains d'une seule personne, qui la gaspille, mais emploie ainsi d'autres personnes. Plus célèbre encore, il l'utilise également une fois dans son *Richesse des nations*, en argumentant que les gouvernements n'ont généralement pas besoin de forcer les commerçants internationaux à investir dans leur propre pays. Dans *La Théorie des sentiments moraux* (1759) et dans *La Richesse des nations* (1776), Adam Smith parle d'une « main invisible », et non de la « main invisible ». Allant bien au-delà de l'intention originale de la métaphore de Smith, les économistes du XXe siècle, en particulier Paul Samuelson, ont popularisé l'utilisation du terme pour désigner une conclusion plus générale et abstraite selon laquelle les marchés véritablement libres sont des systèmes autorégulateurs qui créent des résultats économiquement optimaux, que l'intervention gouvernementale ne peut pas améliorer. L'idée que le commerce et l'échange de marché canalisent parfaitement l'intérêt personnel vers des fins socialement souhaitables est une justification centrale des versions plus récentes de la philosophie économique du *laissez-faire* qui sous-tendent l'économie néoclassique. Dans un contexte de discussion plus générale sur la science, Smith lui-même a décrit les explications de « main invisible » comme typiques d'une discussion non scientifique. Il ne l'a jamais utilisée pour désigner un principe général de l'économie. Ses arguments contre les interventions gouvernementales dans les marchés étaient basés sur des cas spécifiques et n'étaient pas absolus. En mettant de côté la « main invisible » elle-même, bien que les différentes manières dont Smith présentait le cas contre la gestion économique par le gouvernement aient été très influentes, elles n'étaient pas nouvelles non plus. Smith lui-même cite des penseurs des Lumières antérieurs tels que Bernard Mandeville. L'argumentation de Smith sur la « main invisible » a peut-être également été influencée par Richard Cantillon et son modèle du domaine isolé. En raison de l'utilisation moderne de ce terme, il est devenu un raccourci pour désigner une hypothèse clé de l'économie néoclassique, et les désaccords entre les idéologies économiques sont désormais parfois considérés comme des désaccords sur le bon fonctionnement de la « main invisible ». Par exemple, on soutient que les tendances qui étaient naissantes à l'époque de Smith, telles que l'industrie à grande échelle, la finance et la publicité, ont réduit l'efficacité de la prétendue « main invisible ».

### Draft ###

### 1. Query Decomposition

"Peut-on expliquer comment la métaphore de la 'main invisible' chez Smith s'articule avec sa critique des restrictions commerciales et son rejet du mercantilisme ?"

Key elements to address:
- Smith's "invisible hand" metaphor ●
- Commercial restriction critique ●  
- Mercantilist rejection ●
- Articulation/synthesis relationship ?

→ Not simple retrieval. Requires theoretical bridging across Smith's corpus.

### 2. Contextual Mapping

Timeframe: 1776, Wealth of Nations publication ●
Geographic: Scottish Enlightenment, Glasgow/London ◐
Intellectual context: Physiocrats, mercantilists, nascent classical economics ●
Language: English, Latin scholarship influence ◐

Smith's invisible hand appears primarily in Book IV, Chapter II ●
Key passage: "By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. 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."

### 3. Mercantilist Critique Framework

Classical mercantilist assumptions to refute:
- Wealth = precious metals ●
- State control over trade ●
- Export promotion, import restriction ●
- Protectionism as national advantage ●

Smith's counter-argument structure:
├─ Free trade benefits all parties
├─ Specialization increases productivity  
├─ Invisible hand coordinates self-interest
└─ Government intervention distorts natural market forces

### 4. Synthesis Analysis

⟨H≈0.8⟩ The invisible hand doesn't float free of Smith's systematic critique—it emerges from, embodies, and explains his anti-mercantilist framework. When Smith describes individuals "led by an invisible hand" to promote general welfare while pursuing private gain, he's dismantling mercantilist assumption that economic coordination requires conscious government direction.

The metaphor articulates:
- Market mechanisms vs. planned intervention
- Self-regulating forces vs. artificial controls  
- Natural liberty vs. systematic protectionism

### 5. Key Connections

Invisible hand as theoretical bridge:
- Explains how private interest serves public good
- Refutes mercantilist zero-sum worldview
- Demonstrates market's emergent order capacity
- Validates Smith's "laissez-faire" conclusions

∴ The metaphor synthesizes Smith's critique by providing mechanistic explanation for why free markets outperform mercantilist interventions.

### 6. Critical Limitations

⚠ Single metaphor shouldn't overshadow broader theoretical framework
⚠ Risk of anachronistic interpretation (modern neoclassical appropriation)
◐ Smith used metaphor sparingly, not as central organizing principle

NB: Invisible hand appears once in Wealth of Nations, context-dependent usage ●

### 7. Conclusion

The invisible hand metaphor articulates with Smith's anti-mercantilist position by:
- Providing theoretical mechanism explaining market efficiency
- Refuting need for mercantilist intervention
- Demonstrating how self-interest naturally aligns with social benefit
- Validating free trade arguments through elegant metaphor

Rather than separate elements, they form coherent theoretical system where metaphor serves as explanatory synthesis of broader economic philosophy.

### Answer###
La métaphore de la "main invisible" chez Smith s'inscrit au cœur de sa critique du mercantilisme et de ses arguments contre les restrictions commerciales, formant une synthèse théorique cohérente avec sa vision économique.

Cette métaphore apparaît principalement dans le Livre IV, Chapitre 2 de "La Richesse des nations", où Smith explique comment les individus, en poursuivant leur propre intérêt, "sont généralement conduits par une main invisible à promouvoir une fin qui n'était pas du tout partie de leur intention". Cette formulation résume parfaitement l'essence de sa critique du mercantilisme : loin de nécessiter l'intervention gouvernementale directe, l'intérêt public émerge naturellement des actions individuelles.

Smith conteste directement les deux grands postulats du mercantilisme. Il s'oppose à l'idée que chaque pays doit accumuler de l'or et rechercher l'hégémonie commerciale, arguant que le commerce libre bénéficie finalement à tous les acteurs. Sa critique des restrictions commerciales s'appuie sur l'inefficacité et les prix élevés à long terme que ces mesures engendrent.

La "main invisible" représente théoriquement cette coordination spontanée des intérêts privés vers l'intérêt général sans intervention gouvernementale consciente. Cette métaphore explique comment les marchés libres régulent eux-mêmes l'économie de manière optimale, conclusion centrale de l'économie néoclassique moderne.

L'articulation entre ces éléments est donc conceptuelle : la métaphore illustre et explique précisément la logique sous-jacente à la critique smithienne du mercantilisme, démontrant que la liberté économique naturelle produit des résultats supérieurs aux interventions planifiées par l'État.