To add to what you've said, the classical economists can ultimately trace their economic theory back to Confucius via the physiocrats. The chain is Confucius -> Confucians during the early Han dynasty -> Francois Quesnay -> Adam Smith -> David Ricardo -> Karl Marx. Also, laissez-faire is just the physiocrats translating and applying wuwei to state involvement in economics. Wuwei, however, has far more application than laissez-faire and means different things depending on the Chinese school of philosophy (Confucian, Daoist, Legalist).
To the point of Daoism, it is kind of interesting that the ideology basically involved into Mohism, Legalism and Confucianism with the latter basically just out right copy the 2 formers. The case of Daoism fusing with Legalism (a kind of totalistic ideology) basically created Foucault's Panopticon
To add to what you've said, the classical economists can ultimately trace their economic theory back to Confucius via the physiocrats. The chain is Confucius -> Confucians during the early Han dynasty -> Francois Quesnay -> Adam Smith -> David Ricardo -> Karl Marx. Also, laissez-faire is just the physiocrats translating and applying wuwei to state involvement in economics. Wuwei, however, has far more application than laissez-faire and means different things depending on the Chinese school of philosophy (Confucian, Daoist, Legalist).
Also, laissez-faire is just the physiocrats translating and applying wuwei to state involvement in economics
This is kind of interesting
Because Laissez-faire vs State intervention was already a debate in Ancient Chinese empires.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourses_on_Salt_and_Iron
To the point of Daoism, it is kind of interesting that the ideology basically involved into Mohism, Legalism and Confucianism with the latter basically just out right copy the 2 formers. The case of Daoism fusing with Legalism (a kind of totalistic ideology) basically created Foucault's Panopticon