From what I understand, Classical economic theory, and it's descendant free-market theory, are both based on the idea that the economy, if left alone, will always settle out to the best possible conditions. But when I look at history (though I'm no economic historian), it seems that without some new driving force, just the opposite happens. A free market will always 'settle out' to the worst possible condition, for at least the vast majority of the people. Wealth will be controlled by a tiny majority. Recession and depression are the 'normal' state of a free market economy. The only way that a free market system works is if the sizable portion of the population is either enslaved or killed off. The remaining popluation become either police or military forces, or the servants of the wealthy minority. Whenever there has been an economic 'boom' it is due to some driving force. We've had the age of exploration and colonialism, the industrial age, the machine age, the age of electronics and recently the information age. World War II through deficit spending pulled us out of the depression, while cold war military spending kept the economy going. Ronald Reagan pulled the economy out of a slump by combining deficit spending with military spending. Milton Friedman touted the 'free-market' economies of Argentina and Chile as proof of his theories, but both of those countries had fascist dictatorships, that only thru 'depopulation' were able to maintain economic stability. Of course, Singapore and Dubai are cited for being examples of successful free-market economies, but in both cases they are just bastions and control points for people who's wealth was accumulated from other countries - neither one has anything close to a real production base. I really think that the whole free-market concept should be thought thru a second time. Unless your basic moral philosophy espouses depopulation, a police state and enslavement. I really don't think that it works.