This is excellent work, Jay! I have a BA in economics (and an MBA) and have—for a very long time now—been very skeptical of classical economics.

I would like to make a few points.

1. Adam Smith isn't quite who he is typically portrayed to be. While he does describe amoral markets as beneficial, he had a healthy interest in morals and believed that in many cases markets should be heavily regulated. For example, he opposed unfettered capital markets. To really understand Smith, you should also read his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

2. It's crazy to talk about classical economics to describe or explain economics today in countries like the United States...or other wealthy economies. In nearly every case, the laws and rules that regulate (or fail to regulate) the economy are laws promoted and passed by politicians who receive money from wealthy capitalists. There are no markets like those described by Smith in th 1700s. There are gifts and grifts for the wealthy, care of the taxpayer and employees, at the behest of (essentially) plutocrats. This is why, for example, in 2016 when Bernie Sanders was racing towards the Democratic nomination for president, nearly all of the candidates withdrew to support Biden—who was a traditional politician. Sanders, it was well-known, did not take corporate money and did not favor polities that pandered to the ultra-wealthy.

So, yeah. Let's not allow essentials like healthcare to be handled by for-profit corporations. But let's also open our eyes here to what we are dealing with.

Thanks again for your article!