 Well, one thing is it's grossly misinterpreted. So it's worth remembering that the early classical liberals, say, Smith and Humboldt, were pre-capitalist. Later ones like John Stuart Mill were basically social democrats, not as classical liberal in many of much of his thinking, but social democratic and the policies that he advocated in fact one of the policies he advocated was worker self-management. I thought that was an ideal that society ought to move towards, but if you go to the interpretations it's kind of interesting. So for example, I once wrote a review of the bicentennial scholarly edition of Wealth of Nations put out by the University of Chicago with an introduction by a Nobel laureate at Chicago economist George Stigler. Practically everything he said about it was wrong. It was obvious he'd never looked at the book. And in fact it was so extreme that even some of the most important parts were not even in the index. So for example, it takes, say, a division of labor. Everyone is familiar with the early paragraphs about the butcher and the baker and how under the litism and so on. But when Smith continues a couple hundred pages later, he sharply condemns division of labor and says it's kind of an abomination that any civilized society will have to overcome by government intervention and the reason is goes right back to the roots of classical liberalism. The reason is that division of labor will turn every human being into a creature as stupid and ignorant as a person can possibly be because it will just be repeating the same actions over and over. It doesn't have a chance to exercise his intelligence and reaches full development and so on. And that's the core of classical liberalism. Well interestingly, that passage on division of labor isn't even indexed in the scholarly edition. So if you look up the division of labor, it's not there. Another interesting case is the notion of invisible hand. Actually, Smith rarely used the phrase, but the few times when he did use it are interesting. It's used once in wealth of nations, so it's hard to miss. And if you look at the context in which it's used, it's basically a critique of contemporary neoliberalism. I mean, what he points out is that, he says, talking about England, of course, he says, if in England the merchants and the manufacturers decided to invest abroad and import from abroad, they might profit, but the people of England would suffer. However, he says, their natural inclination to operate within their home country, what's called home country bias, will lead them, as if by an invisible hand, not to carry out these actions, and therefore things will work out in England. That's an argument against neoliberalism. That's the one use of the phrase, invisible hand and wealth of nations. He uses it again in his other major book, Moral Sentiments, and what he says there is interesting. He argues that even if you have a cruel and vicious landlord who takes all the land and so on, nevertheless his natural concern for the happiness of other people will lead him, as if by an invisible hand, to make sure that the necessities of life are distributed as equally as they would be if there was an equal distribution in the first place. That's the second use of invisible hand. Of course, that's based on his conception shared with David Hume and others that a core element of human nature is sympathy, in fact, the core notion. For Smith, we have a natural inclination to appreciate and enjoy the happiness of others even if we don't gain from it at all. He contrasts that natural instinct with what he calls the vile maxim of the masters of mankind, all for ourselves and nothing for anyone else. He evidently thinks that the benevolent element, which is the core of human nature, will overcome the impact of the vile maxim. Those are his uses of invisible hand. We can go on case by case. This is pre-capitalist thinking. Now, he wasn't entirely pre-capitalist by any means. For example, if you look at Smith's recommendations to the newly independent American colonies, actually during the Revolutionary War, he gave advice to the colonies, what is now the United States, as to what policies they should follow. The policies he advised are what are called sound economics, basically the Washington consensus, neoclassical economics, just what's told to the Third World today. Concentrate on what you're good at, what later was called comparative advantage for the colonies. He said, produce primary products, agriculture kind of overlooked slavery, but primary products, fish for agricultural products. Don't try to develop industrial products because England is much superior. Everyone will gain if you import advanced industry. Standards of the day was advanced industrial projects from England. Instead of producing your own, that will be beneficial to everyone. That's contemporary economics. Of course, the colonies were independent, so they didn't have to follow sound economics. They did exactly the opposite. What they did is block British manufacturers with very high tariffs, like the highest tariffs in the world, well into the 20th century. We were able to develop a textile industry, first stage of industrial revolution, then all the accessories to a textile industry, like making equipment and so on. Later in the century, a steel industry, blocking superior British steel, and finally the U.S. developed and followed Britain's own course. That's the way Britain developed by radically violating sound economics. In fact, that generalized to every developed state. Smith also urged the colonies not to try to monopolize the agricultural products where they had a natural advantage, what he was thinking of primarily was cotton. Cotton is kind of the oil of the early industrial revolution. And again, that's what sound economics is, but the colonies did the opposite. So they first did develop a huge cotton production through slavery, the most radical violation you can imagine of market principles, and also by conquering half of Mexico. One of the goals of the conquest of half of Mexico, what's now southwest and west of the United States, was to try to monopolize cotton. And the reason was very straightforward. The enemy in those days was England. England had a big military force. It was preventing the United States from conquering Canada, from conquering Cuba. The idea was, you'll take a look at the Jacksonian presidents, and those guys were involved in the conquest of Mexico. What they said straight out is that if we can monopolize cotton, we can bring England to our feet. We'll be able to overcome them. So if you take a look at the record, they did exactly the opposite of sound economics and the prosper. On the other hand, it takes a Egypt. If you go back to say the early 19th century, Egypt was about in the same, not identical, but it was rather similar to the early United States and its prospect. It had a developmentalist dictator, Ahmed Ali. It had cotton, didn't have slaves, but they had flakine. It was rich agriculture, but that's why Napoleon conquered it, in fact. And it had the conditions that could have led to an industrial revolution. But they had to follow sound economics by force. The British simply announced straight out that they were never going to allow independent economic development in the Eastern Mediterranean. French cooperated. And so Egypt did follow the principles of economics, and Egypt is Egypt, and the United States is the United States. That generalizes worldwide.