Transcription
You've been lied to about capitalism because you've been told this is what it looks like. Wealth accumulation, glass towers, trading flaws, a handful of people getting massively rich while everyone else is told like, "Baby, this is just capitalism. It's how it works." And if you it feels unfair, if it feels rigged or unstable, basically you're told that means you hate capitalism. Why are you a socialist, a communist?
But here's the thing. You actually probably don't hate capitalism at all. I mean, you might hate what's been done in its name, though, because the version of capitalism that most people defend today is not the one that its founder, Adam Smith, actually argued for.
So, Adam Smith, who actually was he? Well, he's the man that every free market economist invokes. Adam Smith, the godfather, the OG of capitalism, the the man that everybody quotes to justify the current system. We're told that he believed in small government, hands-off markets, and the idea that self-interest magically benefits everyone, like an invisible hand.
The invisible hand is a phrase that was introduced by Adam Smith in his great book, The Wealth of Nations, in which he uh uh talked about the way in which individuals who intended only to pursue their own interests were led by an invisible hand to promote the public welfare which was no part of their intention. He to he was talking about the economic market about the market in which people buy and sell and he was pointing out that in order for a butcher or a baker or a candlestick maker to make an income he had to produce something that somebody wanted to buy and therefore in the process of promoting his own interest of looking to his own profit he ended up serving the interests of his customers.
Great political economists, the greatest of them, Adam Smith, have shown how a market economy, by devolving the power of consumer choice to customers, runs with the grain of democracy, which disperses the power of political choice to voters.
>> More trade, not less, is the wave of the future. The [snorts] freedom to trade is not a new issue for America. In 1776, our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence. And [snorts] that same year, a Scottish economist named Adam Smith launched another revolution with a book entitled The Wealth of Nations.
>> Adam Smith wrote over 200 years ago, in the economic market, people who intend to serve only their own private interests are led by an invisible hand to serve public interest that it was no part of their intention to promote.
But Adam Smith actually wrote a warning about power corrupting capitalism. He believed that markets could be useful, but only when competition was real and power was dispersed and the rules were enforced fairly. He hated monopolies. He despised collusion. He warned constantly. Direct quote, "Business owners would conspire against the public even for marrynt or diversion." That line alone should tell you something about what he was writing. This is what Adam Sith actually was writing in 1776. He believed in markets, but he believed even more strongly in fairness. He argued that the rich should contribute more than their fair share, not less. to quote, "The subjects of every state ought to contribute to towards the support of the government as nearly as possible and the rich not only in proportion to their income but something more in that proportion." He believed that government had a duty to fund education, infrastructure, justice, the basic conditions that make markets work at all. Because without those things you don't get capitalism, you get power, unbridled power.
So what has happened instead? Well, somewhere along the way, capitalism stopped meaning competition and started meaning concentration. Economies of scale, exploitation. Markets didn't get freer, they got narrower. So instead of many firms competing, we actually got a few giants dominating. Like why is it today that in every industry there are like four or five dominant Goliath companies? Like we get a concentration of power in the hands of the elite. This world isn't Adam Smith's world. This is aristocracy with spreadsheets. And Smith warned when wealth concentrates it doesn't stay economic for long. It becomes political. The rich shape the rules and then they call the result natural.
So when people say you just hate capitalism, well if you don't want this system, what do you want to replace it with? Communism, socialism, the proper reply is, oh no, no, no, sorry. I love capitalism. Love it. But this isn't it. I wouldn't replace this system with capitalism. Would that be all right? Because real capitalism requires strong rules, fair taxation, limits on monopoly, and public investment. Listen, I'm going to say that again because it sounds absolutely mad from where we are right now. Absolutely insane. Real capitalism requires strong rules, fair taxation, limits on monopoly, and public investment.
Which is exactly why the people who benefit from the current system keep misquing Adam Smith because they need him silent, gagged in the corner. I I I'll I'll speak for Adam. He's in the other room, but I'll paraphrase what he has to say honestly. Trust me, because if your entire economy runs on a handful of banks, a handful of tech firms, handful of asset owners, that isn't capitalism. That is feudalism with better branding. Adam Smith didn't argue for a world run by the richest few. He argued for a system where markets served society, not the other way round.
So really, if you're angry about inequality, rigged markets, and power hoarding, you don't hate capitalism. you hate whatever the this is because as mad as it sounds, this is not capitalism. It's something else, something up. But whatever it is, it definitely isn't capitalism. [snorts] Yeah.