How History will judge Us

I have been reviewing Economic History at Wikipedia, a relatively boring practice, but seemingly fit for a Sunday morning. I feel an affinity for Thomas Aquinas’ ‘Just Price’; maybe it is only my attendance at a High School named for him. Mercantilism, on the other hand, was nothing but an expanded oligarchy. Colbert set up guilds to regulate national industries, incipient origin of Communism–control of the economy through control of the Workers. John Locke started the practice of Wealth using Government to protect itself from the demands of the less fortunate. Dudley North brought in the Concepts of Trade to achieve benefits of specialization and division of labor. My heart is with the Physiocrats in my own personal belief in and love for small villages and Towns, over mass concentrations of humanity. I favor Adam Smith more for his prior published labor, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), than for his celebrated The Wealth of Nations(1776). Modern Students hear much about the later-day Economists of Note.

Here is the Question I feel I must ask. All previous Works have been minutely examined and defined, errors outlined, and Positives extolled. How will current Economists be viewed by their Successors?

I find incredible difficulty with the strict allegiance to Free Trade. Opportunity Costs are essentially valid, but there are various exceptions to the Theory itself. Price Fixation varies greatly from Price Theory through the Price-Setting from the Corporate Price Scheduling form of Oligarchy. Externalities invariably damage before restitution is sought, and full Costs never paid. Profit Maximization, itself, has enough holes in the Theory to build an Interstate. There is the dichotomy between immediate exploitation of Opportunity, and long-term safe ecological treatment of Production. It all makes Me wonder if We will be praised or cursed. lgl