the Alice In Wonderland imputation that Smith was in favour of 'free markets' for business in the sense of Friedman's laissez-faire economic promiscuity?

In the words of Rick Wilson's article in the Charleston Gazette:

'Smith died in 1790, before the industrial revolution, mechanization, and the rise of large-scale businesses, let alone the government-sanctioned corporations, trusts, and giant global industrial or financial organizations that were light years from his world of small-scale competition. These often distort outcomes and result in what economists call market failures, such as monopolies, oligopolies and externalities that can cause a lot of damage to individuals and the public but don't show up on a corporation's bottom line.'

How topical and pointed that paragraph is. Why have they distorted Smith's message to a small remnant, totally alien to his views, instead of placing that remnant within the context of his humane and compassionate principles for the WHOLE of society, i.e. STARTING AT THE BOTTOM? Which distortion, of course, being the very reason the world is in such dire straits today. Not only are the most egomaniacal people running the world's economy, they are supremely well-served by the echo-camber of hireling policians and equally corrupt msm, who, by and large, appear to be as reluctant as ever to consider the main thrust of Adam Smith's words relating to an ethic of uncompromising social responsibility, in terms of a just redistribution of the country's wealth. Smith had enough common sense to realise that the more worldly truly need more than the majority of the people, but that that majority should, nevertheless, enjoy a just share of the country's wealth, an ample sufficiency.











'