Samuelson = heretic ?

[Charles Brown <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

*       From: "Devine, James"

BTW, there's a major flaw in Samuelson, one that's not surprising: he
confuses laissez-faire rhetoric or theory with laissez-faire practice. The
latter has hardly ever prevailed and never in the US. "Laissez faire"
policies are really blatantly pro-business one, usually heavily biased in
favor of the big businesses.

^^^^^^
CB: Yes, interesting point. So, perhaps there is no historical pattern of
increased European/US state support of business at the end of the 1800's
beginning of the 1900's, labelled state-monopoly, because the state was
always supporting business full tilt even in "Laissez-faire" era.  No room
for increased support.

Why do so many, including Samuelson, buy idea of increased government
involvement in business in the late 1800's to 1969 era ? Why is it not
surprising that his analysis has this flaw ?

Other thread suggests that some laissez faire trading companies were their
own states, the original privatization.

For Bill of Rights US socialism , we might propose that corporations be
subject to an appropriately modified Bill of Rights relative to those who
work for them, as we have private "states" growing again. Lets have a little
liberal proceduralism for the neo-liberal institutions.