I have a different take on this article than most. I'm a proponent of Classical economics, and I reject all modern schools of economics--neoclassical, Austrian, Keynesian, etc.<p>Classical thinkers like Adam Smith expounded how rational self-interest <i>and</i> competition together lead to economic prosperity. There's a balancing act going on between self-interest and competition--competition is the economic faculty that <i>restrains</i> self-interest.<p>Only in perfect competition do we get <i>Pareto efficiency</i>--the state in which it is impossible to make any one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off.<p>Unfortunately, modern schools of economics have diminished the role of competition. Keynesianism lauds government monopoly power; while neoclassicism and Austrianism foster private monopoly power. Both are <i>evil</i>. The result has been a state of affairs wherein the vast majority of people are getting worse off.<p>WRT government intervention in the markets, Adam Smith would not oppose intervention that fosters competition and stifles monopoly. The goal of the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act was to foster competition, not to diminish "economic freedom."<p>"Economic freedom" is a mostly meaningless buzzword that's thrown around by both libertarians and socialists. Indices of "economic freedom" as compiled by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal serve no other purpose than propaganda.<p>It's impossible to divorce politics from economics in the real world. Adam Smith understood this. The subject used to be called "politico-economics."<p>Today, the Left favors reforms to give government more monopoly power. While the Right favors reforms that give firms more monopoly power. Until people start to wake up and realize all monopoly power is evil and what we need instead is more competition, things will continue to decline.