Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lhn5 who wrote (7644)	3/11/2006 12:33:45 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

I think not, though you can't completely negate Smith anywhere in economic study but he did a pretty good job. Samuelson reflects the mainstream economics that has dominated economic thought throughout the last century, the idea that government, in its superior wisdom, can manipulate individuals into doing what is best for themselves. Smith had a mighty distrust in government intervention into economic affairs. The whole concept behind the "invisible hand" is that individuals, acting only through their own self interest can make a world of plenty that requires no coordination from above. Keynesian government intervention and econometrics with lip service to monetary policy is what economics taught in the University setting is steeped in. Right up to the collapse of the Soviet Union Samuelson was using it as an example of a command control socialist economy working! He completely missed what made post war Japan and West Germany succeed. It's almost as if he never even read Mises and Hayek and their complete refutation of the ideas behind centralized socialist economies.