How many books can a man read before he knows it all?

Samuel Johnson, quoted by James Boswell, observed that "All knowledge is of itself of some value. There is nothing so minute or inconsiderable that I would not rather know it than not." (A triple negative? That's another story.)

This was written in 1791 in Boswell's remarkable biography of Samuel Johnson. But think a minute. What was "all knowledge" in those days in economics, finance, capitalism, technology, governance, societal change and the like? Answer: Very little.

This was written at the beginning of the First Industrial Revolution in Great Britain! Those were the days of Adam Smith whose economic theories were based on farming - not manufacturing or capitalism - and yet he is considered the father of modern economics.

All these learned people wrote classics in more innocent, simpler times. They would be stunned if they could attend a university lecture today in finance or economics. Derivatives? Wealth management? Hedge funds? Computer software? And the list goes on.

I hate to say this, but these guys probably had more native intelligence than we have now. It was just that there was less knowledge out there for them to wrap their minds around. For example, in the 17th century "bleeding" a patient to health was the medical treatment of choice; and even the atom wasn't split until the 20th century.

So what is an average guy in this new millennium supposed to know to be an effective functioning citizen in today's society, which seemingly has endless knowledge at its fingertips?

Certifiable geniuses in 21{+s}{+t} century macroeconomics stumbled in this latest global financial crisis. Just consider Alan Greenspan, our Treasury Department and our politicians. So let me get this off my chest first:

Most observers say the politics of moral values is over; that in 2009 it's all about jobs and government safety nets. My view is just the opposite. Big government and job security is back big time only because those in power in finance, banking and government lost sight of the principles of morality and ethics - most certainly those in responsible quasi-fiduciary, if not fiduciary positions of power.

Not everybody was blind to what was going on. Far too many of the Illuminati simply acted or reacted in their own self interest rather than in the public interest. And that roster most certainly includes politicians.

It is important to understand this because even the brightest among us can't know everything. We have to place trust in those we elect. It isn't that socialism or big government is the answer. It is morality that is. Without a set of moral principles we'd simply be governed by socialist, rather than capitalist crooks. That seems to be the American way: "Where's mine?" History teaches us that any form of government can be corrupt.

Our reaction, unfortunately is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Yet, a surprising number of cognoscenti on the left still reflexively warm to Anglo-Saxon capitalism in spite of their being advocates of socialism.

Let me suggest that we bifurcate our anger and put the financial "industry" with its smoke, mirrors and structural flaws on one side, and the business of real business - making things, productivity, technology, research and development, innovation, entrepreneurial start-ups - all the stuff that makes capitalism a wealth creator - on the other side. The former needs serious oversight; the latter needs to be encouraged.

If we are still, or if we ever were, a great country, it surely is, or was, because of the individual - or rugged individual if you like - Henry Ford, Bill Gates or that really hard boiled competitor, Cornelius Vanderbilt. There are today, and were in the past many such capitalists. Some were pretty ugly.

About the only attribute American history recalls about that iconic socialist Eugene V. Debbs, was that he, like Barack Obama, was a sterling orator. Neither are known for job creation in the private sector.

Some months ago, Michael Freedman of Newsweek wrote that Obama sounds more like the president of France every day; that there "will be a steady drift toward ... a European model of governance, regulation and paternalism."

While we need a heavy dose of reform in the financial and banking industries, we need to think twice before we kill private capital investment. We are rapidly approaching European tax revenues of 48.2 percent of GDP and with an incurable appetite for entitlements.

It is axiomatic that every dollar spent by government means one less dollar in the productive sector of our economy - with even more government interference in business, which will lead to the same kind of slow growth that Europe has experienced for years.

We need to elect politicians in government we can trust, because we mortals can only know so much about economics, banking and finance.

When the going gets tough because they failed, and everything starts to unravel, the first inclination of a populist politician is to recommend - you guessed it - what they know best - bigger and "better" government.

How many books can a man read before he knows it all? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.