Often economics mimics the science of the day. It has been well documented that capitalism and the "free market" wouldn't have taken hold so convincingly in the 19th century if parallels hadn't been favourably drawn to the rising science of evolution, and in particular "the survival of the fittest".
Less well documented is the fact that Adam Smith's "invisible hand", the self regulatory mechanism that keeps the market ticking simply mirrors the science of "equilibrium chemistry". Those who say there should be no intervention in the markets, that they should be left pure to function properly are really just modeling the markets as a simple system in equilibrium chemistry. This stuff is 200 yrs old and showing its age. Those who are following Dr Ron Paul on this are wrong, the model is obselete. Those who don't want George Bush to intervene on the markets are reactionary idealists.
I'd argue that the markets are far more complex than equilibrium chemistry allows. In the 20th century Ilya Prigogine radically developed the science of complex systems far from any equilibrium. These systems are chaotic but develop periodic order and patterns of behaviour, this is far more like the system inherent in the world markets.
Patterns develop, prosperity and poverty grow and become polarised, greed and the state intervene and the patterns repeat. It is not pretty, but it is the deeply flawed system of market economics. There is no good in the system. It is unfair, it always will be. However putting your faith in an unfettered free market, free from state intervention is like putting your faith in caloric or flogiston, a bit silly!
The Belousov-Zhaobtinski reaction; complex, non equilibrium, chaotic, yet a pretty system (unlike the free market which isn't pretty).
Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it.
Unless the Lord keep the city, he watcheth in vain that keepeth it.