Lev Lafayette wrote:
Yes indeed; but perhaps the problem is deeper than choice of political ideology; I would contend that : 1/ " Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand " is not just invisible but non-existent, and belief in it is a pathetic, irresponsible delusion. All that Adam Smith's invisible hand means is that there is such a thing as aggregate economic activity by which subjective activity can lead to positive externalities, Well reading 'subjective' as 'individual' which is what I think you intend; the mute words are 'can'; which could mean 'has on one occasion' and 'positive' which is a value judgement.
I doubt very much that was what Adam Smith or free-market enthusiasts intend; which would be more like 'must' or 'usually'.
"frequently ... more effectually". that those who claim to be acting for the public interest intentionally.
Seeming that I believe that Adam Smith's actual use of the "invisible hand" (from Wealth of Nations, Book 2, Chapter 2) is actually correct, I must be engaging in a "pathetic, irresponsible[,] delusion". if by " invisible hand is meant that there is such a thing as aggregate economic activity, by which INDIVIDUAL activity USUALLY leads to positive externalities," then his usage is correct; if he or anyone else believes this then they are : "engaging in a pathetic, irresponsible, delusion". As one theoretical-physicist's eloquent denigration of a theory went; " it's not even wrong"
regards Rohan