Understanding Adam Smith, Economic Inequality, and Market Failures
Billionaires keep getting richer while the average person struggles. Some blame capitalism, arguing that it fuels inequality, monopolization, and financial crises. But what if capitalism isn’t the problem?
The real issue may not be capitalism itself, but crony capitalism: the collusion between corporations and government that rigs the system.
How well capitalism functions depends on market structures, government regulations, and business practices. When working properly, capitalism drives innovation, fosters competition, and lifts people out of poverty (Piketty 112). But when corrupted by government favoritism, capitalism mutates into cronyism, creating inequality, market monopolies, and economic instability.
To understand capitalism’s role in today’s economy, we must separate free-market capitalism from crony capitalism and revisit Adam Smith’s original vision.
Does Capitalism Create Wealth Inequality?
Reality Check: Inequality is often fueled by cronyism, not capitalism.
Many billionaires pay lower tax rates than middle-class workers thanks to government-created tax loopholes (Kiel).
In the U.S., the richest 1% control over 32% of wealth, while the bottom 50% own just 2.6% (Federal Reserve).
What About Other Capitalist Economies?
Denmark and Sweden have market-driven economies but balance capitalism with strong social policies providing healthcare, education, and worker protections (World Economic Forum 22).
This suggests that inequality is not inherent to capitalism but often results from government policies that benefit the wealthy.
Are Monopolies a Failure of Capitalism?
Critics point to giant corporations like Google, Amazon, and Facebook, claiming they prove capitalism naturally creates monopolies.
Reality Check: Monopolies thrive because of government protection, not market competition.
Google controls 92% of the global search engine market (StatCounter).
But this dominance isn’t just due to competition. Instead, it’s reinforced by government contracts and lobbying power (Stiglitz 211).
A true free market prevents monopolies from distorting competition—but in crony capitalism, government intervention helps monopolies stay in power.
What Did Adam Smith Actually Say About Markets?
Adam Smith, often called the father of capitalism, did not support unchecked corporate power. While he championed free markets, he warned against economic corruption and monopolistic behavior.
Smith’s Core Principles:
Self-interest isn’t greed: Markets work best when businesses operate with ethics and integrity (Theory of Moral Sentiments 110).
Transparency matters: Consumers need full and fair information to make informed choices (Wealth of Nations 345).
Government has a role: But it must avoid favoritism. Smith believed governments should enforce contracts, prevent fraud, and ensure open competition while never colluding with businesses (Wealth of Nations 421).
Simply put, Smith’s capitalism was about businesses succeeding through competition, not through government favoritism.
Capitalism vs. Crony Capitalism: What’s the Difference?
Free-Market Capitalism: The Ideal
When capitalism functions properly, businesses thrive based on merit—consumer demand, efficiency, and innovation—not political connections (Friedman 23).
Example: South Korea’s Economic Transformation
In the 1960s, South Korea was poorer than Ghana—struggling with economic stagnation.
By 2022, its GDP per capita exceeded $34,000 (World Bank).
This was achieved through market-driven growth, education investment, and technological advancement, a model of dynamic capitalism (OECD 45).
This represents capitalism as Smith envisioned where competition drives progress.
Crony Capitalism: Rigged Markets
Unlike true free-market capitalism, crony capitalism thrives on favoritism, not competition. Instead of allowing businesses to succeed on merit, governments grant subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks to well-connected corporations.
Example:
The 2008 Financial Crisis & Big Bank Bailouts: The U.S. government spent $700 billion bailing out banks while millions of Americans lost their homes (U.S. Treasury). Instead of allowing reckless banks to fail and face market consequences, the government protected financial elites (Sowell 176).
Amazon’s Government Subsidies: While small businesses struggle, Amazon received $3.7 billion in government subsidies, allowing it to undercut competitors and dominate markets (Good Jobs First). This isn’t capitalism. It’s corporate favoritism.
Smith warned that when businesses become too entangled with government, markets cease to function fairly. When corporations lobby for special treatment, competition erodes, consumers suffer, and inequality deepens.
Cronyism at Its Worst: The Fragrance Loophole
One of the most blatant examples of corporate favoritism at the expense of consumers is the "fragrance loophole."
How It Works:
The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) of 1966 allows companies to hide fragrance ingredients under the vague label of "fragrance" or "parfum."
Why? To protect "trade secrets" but this allows companies to legally conceal harmful chemicals.
The Consequences:
The U.S. bans only 11 toxic chemicals in cosmetics, while the European Union bans over 1,300 (FDA, European Commission).
Consumers unknowingly expose themselves to harmful substances, such as:
Phthalates – linked to hormone disruption & birth defects (ATSDR).
Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives – associated with respiratory issues & cancer (ACS).
Synthetic musks – accumulate in human tissue & disrupt hormones (SCCS).
Smith Would Call This a Market Failure:
Consumers cannot make informed choices when corporations hide key product information.
Regulatory agencies fail to enforce transparency, prioritizing corporate secrecy over consumer safety.
This benefits large corporations at the expense of ethical businesses that fully disclose ingredients.
Would Smith Support Government Regulation Here?
Smith opposed excessive regulation, but he supported enforcing transparency.
If businesses mislead consumers by hiding toxic chemicals behind vague labels, Smith would see this as a market failure.
Smith would likely favor government intervention in the form of truth-in-labeling laws to protect competition and consumer choice.
At the very least, Smith would oppose laws like FPLA and TSCA, which allow corporations to mislead consumers.
A more balanced approach that ensures transparency without stifling innovation would best align with Smith’s principles.
To the Critics of Capitalism: This Isn’t Capitalism!
Smith’s capitalism was never about protecting monopolies or giving corporations special privileges. His vision was one of fair competition, consumer trust, and ethical business practices.
The real question then is will we restore free markets or allow corruption to define our economy?
RECOMMENDED READING
Here are some helpful resources if you'd like to learn more.
Pro-Capitalism Perspectives:
Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom
Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics
Critical Views on Capitalism:
Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century
Joseph Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality
Historical & Ethical Perspectives:
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Emma Rothschild, Economic Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet, and the Enlightenment
Comments