Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Capitalism Without Competition Is Oligarchy

America’s problem is not capitalism – it’s the corruption of competition

Opinion

Capitalism Without Competition Is Oligarchy
1 U.S.A dollar banknotes

For decades, Americans were told that globalization and free markets would deliver broadly shared prosperity. Instead, many saw stagnant wages, hollowed-out communities, and a growing concentration of wealth and power. The backlash was inevitable. But the real failure was not capitalism itself. It was the corruption of competition and the establishment’s generations-long indifference to the working class it left behind. That disregard didn’t just crater trust in institutions; it fueled populist backlash across the political spectrum, with anti-establishment anger now reshaping American politics.

Two truths define the American economic dilemma. First: competitive capitalism remains history’s most powerful engine for wealth creation, driving greater aggregate prosperity over the past two centuries than perhaps any other economic system. But averages are dangerous fictions; a man can easily drown in a lake that is, on average, two feet deep.


Second: the laissez-faire ideology that achieved near-religious status in recent decades has mutated into something closer to crony capitalism than genuine market competition.

Free markets do not emerge naturally; they are enforced political constructs. If markets work, it is because rules make them work. In American political rhetoric, faith in markets was often distorted into the fiction that the government’s best role was total noninterference. But Adam Smith’s real insight was not that markets should be left alone, but that competition disciplines self-interest into socially productive outcomes. Properly structured, the system aligns private ambition with public benefit: entrepreneurs profit by creating products and services consumers prefer over competing alternatives. It is the dynamic of competition that results in consumer surplus.

A fundamental principle in Smith’s model is that entrepreneurs must play fairly under a set of transparent, agreed-upon rules. Ironically, our crony capitalism model depends on the precise opposite of what Smith had in mind: unfairly advantaged producers raising structural obstacles to quash the very competition that benefits consumers. America’s most powerful corporations no longer win by competing. They win by rewriting the rules of competition. This is what drives today’s crisis of democratic legitimacy.

Markets fail in predictable ways. That is why government intervention is not a betrayal of capitalism, but often a prerequisite for making it work. The most common market failures are:

  1. Information asymmetry. Markets break when participants operate with radically unequal information. That is why institutions like the FDA, FTC, and SEC exist: to reduce deception, protect consumers, and preserve trust.
  1. Externalities. Firms maximize profits by widening the gap between revenues and costs. But when some costs—such as carbon emissions—are shifted onto society, markets stop pricing reality. This is not just a moral failure—it is an economic distortion. If firms were required to account for external costs, capitalism’s innovation engine would race to solve the problem. In such a system, the winning firm would be the one that delivers value with the lowest real social cost. Properly designed regulation could align capitalist incentives with climate solutions.
  1. Underinvestment in public goods. Some goods are chronically underprovided by markets because their benefits are shared too broadly to be captured privately. Infrastructure, clean air and water, parks, national security, emergency services, and public education all fall into this category. Few public investments have delivered returns as consistently as education, which produces more productive citizens and reduces long-term social costs.

A healthy capitalist system should also serve the public good. But this balance collapses when dominant firms evade the costs they impose on society while simultaneously shaping the political rules meant to constrain them. At that point, the interests of economic elites diverge from those of the public—even if GDP keeps rising. Left unchecked, that divergence only widens. If capitalism becomes merely a mechanism for incumbents to privatize gains while socializing costs, collapse is not a bug. It is the logical endpoint. After all, what good is bragging about a rising GDP while so many of our citizens are drowning?

Seth David Radwell is the author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing Our Nation,” winner of last year’s International Book Award for Best General Nonfiction. He is a frequent contributor as a political analyst and speaker within the business community and on college campuses both in the U.S. and abroad.


Read More

Empty money in wallet.

What does it mean to be the working poor? Explore the gap between poverty and a living wage, why millions of working Americans struggle, and solutions to reduce economic inequality.

photobyphotoboy/Getty Images

The Concept of the “Working Poor” Should Be Unacceptable

What does the phrase "working poor" mean? The first point is that you are working; you have a regular job—you aren't working catch as catch can; you are employed. But despite working, you are poor. What does it mean to be poor? It turns out that "poor” means different things depending on what standard you apply.

Some definitions seem rooted in the old institution of the poorhouse, which was a home for paupers. Thus, dictionary.com defines “poor” as having little or no money or other means of support. To me, that’s the definition of being destitute, not poor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman holding out an empty wallet at a table.

Many Americans wrongly associate poverty primarily with Black and Hispanic communities. Explore how this misconception influences public opinion, politics, and anti-poverty policy.

skaman306 / Getty Images

More Whites Live in Poverty than Either Blacks or Hispanics - Correcting the Perception of Poverty

From observing people and politicians over the years—I can find no data on this—I have the impression that liberals as well as conservatives think that the typical person living in poverty is Black or Hispanic. The image most Whites have of people of color is someone who is poor—except for celebrities—with little education; they are not aware of many people of color who are middle class. On the other hand, they are not aware of many Whites who are poor and so they think their number is low.

Why is the perception of poverty important? The perception of who is poor has significant impact on the support for government programs that aid the poor. Given the extent of racism in this country, whether subtle or violent, (see my post, “Whether the Issue is Gun Violence or Inequality, It Always Comes Back to Race/Racism”), it’s not surprising that support for anti-poverty programs is non-existent among MAGA Republicans and for that matter has always been weak among Republicans; 45% of Republicans would even cut food stamp support. Their attitude is "it's your fault;" so government has no responsibility to help. They feel the causes of poverty are personal: bad life choices, drugs, lack of work ethic, and the breakdown of families—all negative perceptions of Black culture.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress at sunset

America's national debt is projected to reach $45 trillion by 2029. Explore Congress's constitutional "Power of the Purse," federal spending, appropriations, and the policies contributing to rising deficits.

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Congress Must Enforce the Power of the Purse as Debt Soars

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” (Appropriations Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, U.S. Constitution). Congress’s “Power of the Purse” means the President cannot spend money or authorize expenditures unless Congress has passed a specific law funding it (Congress.gov).

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the total federal debt held by Americans is on track to hit $40 trillion by the end of 2026. Currently, every resident in America carries a $122,642 share of this debt.

Keep ReadingShow less
​A Lebanese girl returns with her family to live amid the ruins of an apartment wrecked by Israeli strikes.

A Lebanese girl returns with her family to live amid the ruins of an apartment wrecked by Israeli strikes in the Houch neighborhood, after being displaced for weeks by war between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia that has displaced 1.2 million Lebanese, on April 28, 2026, in Tyre, Lebanon.

Scott Peterson / Getty Images

Please Don't Feed the Warmongers

I was recently catching up with an old friend from my Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps days who told me about some young sailors he knew in Bahrain tasked with intercepting hostile drones. Critically, as highly disciplined professionals, they have become extraordinarily good at it. My friend and I, with over twenty years of active duty service as military officers between us, discussed the extent to which their competence and vigilance are keeping them, and other Americans deployed in the area, alive, all while their leadership in Washington treats war with an increasingly terrifying callousness.

As brave servicemembers risk their lives on the front lines, Trump brags about how much money he’s making as president. It is true that for those invested in the types of industries that thrive during armed conflict, this war in Iran is a windfall. Trump himself invested between $9.7 million and $24.3 million in arms manufacturers and Pentagon contractors in 2025. Why would he end the war?

Keep ReadingShow less