It was strict adherence to Adam Smith principles that led to the Irish famine. However, the bit they failed heeding was that flexibility may also mean micro market control. Or in other words, if you see people starving, your particular interpretation of market control is not working.

In the 1840's, Adam Smith principles were revered to the extent that they couldn't possibly be wrong in any given situation, despite the fact that a) they were in many cases, and b) Smith himself spoke of the dangers of lack of pragmatism.

So, for me before I retired and sold my shares, Adam Smith did rather well for me. Now, although I have no needs I cannot sort myself, I am involved in health and social care, and so my thinking, my strategic advice etc most certainly isn't in the Adam Smith mode. Horses for courses. Social equality can only be delivered if the country can afford it. In order to afford it, money has to be a driver.

There is nothing wrong with the noble aims of socialism, nor the noble aims of market economies. I personally feel that you need market economies in order to provide a social policy. I am not convinced this government has got it right with their radical approach, even if fairness is the aim. I don't hold with the idea that there is a sub agenda to make more people poor and miserable, I do accept that there is a culture of not contributing to society as a lifestyle choice, and someone, some time has to address that.

I just think their approach is relying too much on a private sector led revival, when that means selling goods and services to countries with equally large overdrafts. Where will we find the customers? their naivety is concerning, and to make it worse, I also think Labour are pushing too far in the "let the general recovery paper over the cracks" direction. To be fair to Labour, they have the luxury of opposition. If they were in power, it wouldn't be much different...