번역가 김홍식 의 블로그 입니다 : [ E . K . Hunt ] Paul A . Samuelson Versus Milton Friedman and the Conservative Neoclassicists 
 자료 : History of Economic Thought : A Critical Perspective , by E . K . Hunt , Mark Lautzenheiser . 2011 
 These terms are sometimes confusing because the 19 th century doctrine of laissez - faire was then known a " liberalism " whereas today the more extreme advocated of laissez - faire are now called conservative [ , ] and the neoclassical economists who temper their analysis and advocate government intervention to correct " market imperfections " or " market failures " are now called liberals . 
 They concede that the invisible hand is not by itself sufficient . They give what frequently appears to be a fair hearing to the many objections to laissez - faire , but they always end up defending all three tenets of neoclassical ideology . They conclude , more frequently implicitly rather than explicitly , that although the invisible hand , helped along the visible fist of government , is not perfect , it is the closest thing to perfection that current levels of human knowledge allow . Those difficulties that remain appear to be resolvable by a mere continuation of the reforms of the past century . 
 He dominated the course of development of , as well as the teaching of , liberal neoclassical economics . Because liberal neoclassical economics has dominated the academic economics profession , Samuelson can be said to have been the most influential economist since WW II . 
 He considered and generally granted some validity to many of the objections to neoclassicism . When one reads Samuelson , as with Mill , one cannot help but be aware that he would have preferred capitalism to be a somewhat more humane system than it in fact is . Like Mill , he did not hesitate to admit many of the inequalities as injustices of capitalsim . But also like Mill , he had a faith in gradual reform within the institution of capitalism , and when one sorts out the eclecticism of his approach , his neoclassical ideas culminated ( ... . ..) 
 First , laissez - faire capitalism is economically unstable . But the extension of government has , he argued , created a " mixed economy ㅡ the mixture being one of the invisible hand of the market and the visible fist of the government . " The mixed economy has not totally eliminated instability but has rendered it moderate and tolerable : The business cycle has been tamed , even if not completely made a thing of the past . Although democratic mixed economies are unlikely to experience old fashioned , prolonged depression ever again , recessions and periods of relative stagnation will no doubt still ocurr even though fiscal and monetary policies can moderate their frequency , intensity , and duration . [ 10 ] 
 Adam Smith , in his talk about an Invisible Hand , which leads the selfish actions of individuals toward so harmonious a final result , did have some point . Smith never could state or prove exactly what the point was , but modern economics can state this property of ideal competitive pricing : under perfectly perfect competition , where all prices end up equal to all marginal costs , where the genuine desires and well being of individuals are all represented by their marginal utilities as expressed in their dollar voting ㅡ then the resulting equilibrium has the efficiency property that " you can ' t make any one man better off without hurting some other man . " What does this mean exactly ? It means that a planner could not come along with a slide rule and find a solution , different from the laissez - faire one , which could improve the welfare of everyone . [ 17 ] 
 first , as we saw in the previous chapter , Samuelson himself admitted that the reswitching controversy proved that in many cases ( and , as we saw , these cases are the general rule ) there is no logically consistent method of even defining which of different production techniques is more capital intensive . This means that no amount of empirical evidence will show that " greater capital intensiveness " leads to the results predicted by the neoclassical parable . This was , in fact , admitted by Samuelson in his esoteric journal article . But in his Economics , through which he influenced untold millions of readers , he denies it . Samuelson ' s second obfuscation , again contrary to his recantation in the esoteric journal article , is his failure to show the reader that the reswitching demonstration utterly destroyed the foundation of the neoclassical parable , as well as most neoclassical versions of the invisible - hand argument . 
 2 / 16 / 2012 02 : 30 : 00 오후