> The 'idle' class is not actually 'idle', and if they are then usually their parents were not 'idle'

Heirs who do not work and live off the profits of worker's labor are idle. Certainly their parents are idle as well. If that were not the case there wouldn't be phrases like nouveau riche and old money. You can watch billionaire heir Jamie Johnson's documentaries to see more with regards to this.

> 'Every individual... neither intends to promote...'

Precisely. You're quoting from Book IV, Chapter II of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. The chapter is titled "Of Restraints upon the Importation from Foreign Countries of such Goods as can be Produced at Home". Meaning restraints on international free trade.
It's opening sentence is "By restraining, either by high duties or by absolute prohibitions, the importation of such goods from foreign countries as can be produced at home, the monopoly of the home market is more or less secured to the domestic industry employed in producing them."

The part you quote says fully:

"As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it."

The end being promoted by the invisible hand is as the only sentence discussing the invisible hand opens with "by preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry". The means to do that are described in the chapter title "of Restraints upon the Importation from Foreign Countries of such Goods as can be Produced at Home" through means described in the chapter's first sentence and elsewhere "by restraining, either by high duties or by absolute prohibitions, the importation of such goods from foreign countries as can be produced at home, the monopoly of the home market is more or less secured to the domestic industry employed in producing them".

It's not hard to see how the notion of the invisible hand has been twisted to its exact opposite meaning, as even when people point this fact out, they ignore the text and continue on with the meaning they think it has...

> The USSR could do it, all things consider, they could not do it well...Central planning as envisioned by Trosky, Lenin, Bukharin, Bauer and co is so impossible that it is impossible to enforce, people will automatically start working around the inefficacy of the system.

Actually the USSR economy functioned very well under Stalin. While the west was mired in the Great Depression, the USSR was growing by leaps and bounds. European (and even American) workers moved to Russia to get work, as did European (and American) firms. It managed to beat off a German invasion and raise the red flag in Berlin. By 1957 it was launching satellites and doing other such innovations ahead of the west. Nonetheless, in 1956 Khrushchev announced various major changes, including a decrease in capital allocation percentages, something which also happened in other Comecon countries. Those changes and other things did lead to stagnation, but they were a shift. In fact the Chinese stated so at a time, and eventually broke from the Russians due to this revisionism.

> Planning is about direction, and you can say lots about the US government but they don't point the economy in a particular direction

Of course it does. The direction was and is set out by DARPA, NSF, NIH. Who is funding the Boston Dynamics robots (answer: DARPA)? Who is providing money to SpaceX (answer: NASA)? Who is providing Boeing with revenues for the R&D necessary to build airplanes (Boeing is the second largest military contractor in the world)? Who is funding CRISPR/Cas9 research?

> The US was the most successful and innovative economic power on the planet when the federal government had less then 2% of GDP.

A number of factors are at play with this. One is that settlers arrived fairly historically recently in the US, gaining over 9 million square kilometers of land, much of it resourceful, plus the bonus of two big oceans to protect it. That in itself is quite a big windfall, a large European country like France is 5% of the size of the USA. Countries like Argentina has a similar trajectory, but 2 out of 3 Argentinians have indigenous heritage, whereas Americans killed almost all of the native population and took their land (about 1% of Americans have native heritage). Other factors are at play, but being handed over the equivalent of 20 Frances with two big oceans around it can do a lot to help one be a successful economic power.