Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)
Link to this comment:
Share to:
Loading...
- Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
or sign in to load a different list.
Loading...Saving...
um no, the invisble hand has been misunderstood not exagurated. It in the wealth of nations is ment to be a defence against protectionism, claiming that people will invest domestically rather than have money leave the community or nation. If you can't even read the book the next best thing you can do is read the quote from the book.
Wouldn't it just be convenient for your position if it was over exagurated that than misunderstood? I think so.
Think im lieing? listen to democrat god chomsky
MirageScience 3 weeks ago