The same argument could have been given by writing a different essay, say *"I, Car"* or *"I, Airplane"*. As a good educator Leonard E. Read chooses a more down-to-earth example - a simple pencil - to prove his point and make his argument stick with the reader. > *The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society’s legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand.* #### TL;DR This essay - first published in 1958 - gives a wonderful description of the process behind the creation of what is seemingly a very simple object, a lead pencil. It beautifully describes the amount of human coordination that needs to happen for a simple pencil to be made. Main topics covered: - Leonard is considered to be largely responsible for the revival of the liberal tradition in post–World War II America. - In this essay he describes the incredible amount of coordination, cooperation and trade that needs to take place in the simple production of a pencil. - Guided by Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” free people accomplish economic miracles. - In this essays he shows that the seemingly unrelated interests of countless individuals from around the world converge to produce pencils without a single “master mind”. - Leonard’s main point is that economies can hardly be “planned” when not one soul possesses all the know-how and skills to produce a simple pencil. - While “I, Pencil” shoots down the baseless expectations for central planning, it provides a supremely uplifting perspective of the individual. "Make" isn't strong enough to carry this sentence; "manufacture" is probably the word he wanted, as in "manufacture me in large enough quantities to render me a commonplace." It seems almost impossible that no one on earth back in 1950-whatever could make a pencil from scratch; it certainly isn't true now, as a quick search through YouTube shows. The rest of the paragraph also argues for "manufacture," although I'm not sure that was the author's intention. Here is a video of Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman talking about the complexity involved in making a lead pencil: Milton Friedman - I, Pencil: [](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67tHtpac5ws) > *Think of all the persons and the numberless skills that went into their fabrication: the mining of ore, the making of steel and its refinement into saws, axes, motors; the growing of hemp and bringing it through all the stages to heavy and strong rope; the logging camps with their beds and mess halls, the cookery and the raising of all the foods. Why, untold thousands of persons had a hand in every cup of coffee the loggers drink! The logs are shipped to a mill in San Leandro, California. Can you imagine the individuals who make !at cars and rails and railroad engines and who construct and install the communication systems incidental thereto? These legions are among my antecedents.* Passing lightly over the (presumably non-trivial) equivalence between delivering natural gas from Texas to New York and delivering a letter across the street, it is an interesting exercise to apply the author's reasoning to the step before delivery: addressing. How is it that "millions of tiny know-hows would naturally and miraculously form and cooperate" to create a practical trans-territorial addressing scheme? There's hot-potato routing, but that's neither efficient, effective, nor cheap. There's Milgram's small-world experiment, but that begs the question because it assumes USPS addressing. Leonard Edward Read was the founder and President of the Foundation for Economic Education - one of the first modern libertarian institutions in the United States - he is considered to be largely responsible for the revival of the liberal tradition in post–World War II America. He was also an author - he wrote 29 books and numerous essays, including this well-known "I, Pencil" published in December of 1958.  > *Here is an astounding fact: Neither the worker in the oil field nor the chemist nor the digger of graphite or clay nor any who mans or makes the ships or trains or trucks nor the one who runs the machine that does the knurling on my bit of metal nor the president of the company performs his singular task because he wants me. Each one wants me less, perhaps, than does a child in the first grade. Indeed, there are some among this vast multitude who never saw a pencil nor would they know how to use one. Their motivation is other than me. Perhaps it is something like this: Each of these millions sees that he can thus exchange his tiny know-how for the goods and services he needs or wants. I may or may not be among these items. * A great video about "I, Pencil" [](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE) > there’s some wood, lacquer, the printed labeling, graphite lead, a bit of metal, and an eraser.  The materials that go into a pencil are: - cedar wood - graphite - metal - rubber Although this list seems short and trivial no one person could create these elements on their own. The Invisible Hand is a metaphor describing the ***unintended greater benefits and public good brought about by individuals acting in their own self-interests.*** We approve and reward acts that benefit society, and disapprove and punish acts that harm it - this behavior promotes the continued existence of our species and our society. This economic concept that was first introduced by Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759. I'm not sure how this advances the author's point (I probably don't understand the author's point). If we're supposed to go goggle-eyed over somebody making rope in the Philippines so I can have a pencil, we should be equally goggle-eyed over somebody in Virginia making chewing tobacco for the cowboys herding the livestock providing the leather for the mail pouches used by the letter carriers so I can get a letter. Despite government monopoly, mail delivery seems to provide at least as much wonder as pencil manufacture. > *Here is an astounding fact: Neither the worker in the oil field nor the chemist nor the digger of graphite or clay nor any who mans or makes the ships or trains or trucks nor the one who runs the machine that does the knurling on my bit of metal nor the president of the company performs his singular task because he wants me. Each one wants me less, perhaps, than does a child in the first grade. Indeed, there are some among this vast multitude who never saw a pencil nor would they know how to use one. Their motivation is other than me. Perhaps it is something like this: Each of these millions sees that he can thus exchange his tiny know-how for the goods and services he needs or wants. I may or may not be among these items. * The division of labor is the separation of complex production tasks into many simpler subtasks so that individuals may specialize. Specialized Individuals or organizations will trade to take advantage of the capabilities of others in addition to their own. The division of labor is the motive for trade and the source of economic interdependence. Its importance in economics lies in the fact that a given number of workers can produce far more output using division of labor compared to the same number of workers each working alone. Read on here: [Division of Labor by Michael Munger](https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/DivisionofLabor.html) > *From the standpoint of know-how the only dierence between the miner of graphite in Ceylon and the logger in Oregon is in the type of know-how. Neither the miner nor the logger can be dispensed with, any more than can the chemist at the factory or the worker in the oil field—paran being a by-product of petroleum.*