The Invisible Hand and the Visible Rebellion:
Video FACT CHECK SUMMARY:
- ✓ Adam Smith used "invisible hand" three times (not just once in Wealth of Nations - also in Theory of Moral Sentiments and History of Astronomy)
- ✓ The phrase was NOT central to his work
- ✓ Modern interpretation as universal market law is a 20th century invention
- ✓ Smith was a moral philosopher first, economist second
- ✓ He warned extensively about merchants conspiring against the public
- ✓ MPs holding EIC stock: 20-23% in the 1770s - confirmed!
- ✓ East India Company had monopoly privileges and private army
- ✓ Tea Act of 1773 and Boston Tea Party details are accurate
- ✓ Smith called the mercantile system a "violent attack"
The Invisible Hand and the Visible Rebellion: How Adam Smith and America's Founders Fought the Same Enemy
In March 1776, as British troops tightened their grip on Boston and General Washington fortified New York against the expected invasion, a Scottish professor published a dense, two-volume work that would reshape economic thought for centuries. Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations appeared in London bookshops just four months before American colonists would declare their independence from the very system Smith's masterwork set out to dismantle.
The timing was no accident. Both Smith and the American revolutionaries were taking aim at the same target: the elaborate structure of monopolies, trade restrictions, and government favoritism known as mercantilism that had dominated European economic policy for two centuries.
The Mercantilist Straitjacket
To understand what drove both the philosophical and political revolutions of 1776, one must first grasp how thoroughly mercantilism constrained economic life in the eighteenth century. The prevailing wisdom held that a nation's wealth consisted of its accumulated gold and silver, and that international trade was a zero-sum game where one country's gain necessarily meant another's loss. Governments therefore regulated commerce with an iron hand, restricting imports, subsidizing exports, granting exclusive trading privileges to favored companies, and treating colonies as captive markets for the mother country's benefit.
For American colonists, these policies meant their economic lives were minutely controlled from London. The Navigation Acts required that most colonial trade pass through British ports on British ships. Manufacturing restrictions prevented colonists from producing finished goods that might compete with British industries. They could grow tobacco, but they couldn't make their own cloth. They could harvest timber, but they couldn't build their own ships for international trade without restriction. The colonies existed, in the mercantilist view, to provide raw materials and purchase manufactured goods, with the profits flowing reliably back to Britain.
Yet the British American colonies experienced mercantilism in relatively mild form compared to what Spain and Portugal had imposed on Latin America for more than two centuries. The Spanish and Portuguese were mercantilism's most ruthless practitioners, and the legacy of their extractive policies continues to burden Latin American economies to this day.
Mercantilism's Harshest Laboratory
From the early sixteenth century, Spain and Portugal built colonial empires in the Americas on a foundation of radical extraction. Spain established the Casa de Contratación in 1503 to regulate and control every aspect of trade between Spain and the New World. All goods and precious metals had to pass through designated monopoly ports—Veracruz in Mexico and Portobelo in Panama—where Spanish officials could tax and control every transaction. Portugal established similar systems for Brazil and its other holdings.
The obsession with precious metals reached extraordinary levels. When the Spanish discovered the massive silver deposits at Potosí in present-day Bolivia, they created what amounted to an industrial death machine, forcing indigenous people and later African slaves to extract silver under brutal conditions. Throughout the colonial period, some 180 tons of gold and 16,000 tons of silver flowed from the Americas to Spain. Yet this enormous wealth enriched Spanish elites while devastating Spain's own economy through massive inflation and dependency on extraction rather than productive enterprise.
The economic hierarchy was clear and rigid: colonies existed solely to enrich the mother country. Colonial manufacturers were systematically suppressed to prevent competition with Spanish and Portuguese producers. A roughly twenty percent tax was levied on all wealth produced in the colonies. Trade with other nations was absolutely forbidden. The colonies could not trade with each other except through the mother country. Local industries were strangled before they could develop. Even basic economic activity required navigating a maze of royal monopolies, exclusive trading contracts, and mercantilist restrictions.
The human cost was staggering. The encomienda system granted Spanish colonists legal rights to indigenous labor—a system that differed from slavery more in name than practice. When indigenous populations collapsed under the weight of disease and exploitation, the colonizers turned to the African slave trade to maintain the flow of wealth. The asiento system, which granted monopoly contracts for supplying slaves to Spanish colonies, became another layer of mercantilist privilege.
The Lasting Damage
The consequences of Iberian mercantilism extended far beyond the colonial period. When Napoleon's invasion of the Iberian Peninsula in 1807-1808 disrupted the Spanish and Portuguese monarchies—forcing Portugal's royal family to flee to Brazil and leaving Spain in political chaos—Latin American colonies seized the opportunity for independence. Throughout the 1810s and 1820s, liberation movements swept across Spanish America and Brazil.
Yet independence brought little immediate relief from mercantilism's legacy. The new nations inherited economies systematically structured for extraction rather than development. They lacked diversified industries, having been prohibited from developing them for centuries. They had no experience with independent commerce, having been forbidden to trade freely. They possessed little infrastructure beyond what served the extraction of resources. The merchant and professional classes were small and weak, having been systematically excluded from economic decision-making.
When European and American manufactured goods flooded into the newly independent nations, local producers—such as they were—couldn't compete. The psychological and institutional damage ran deep: generations had grown accustomed to economic dependency, to the idea that manufactured goods came from Europe while Latin America supplied raw materials. This pattern persisted long after political independence, as economic power simply shifted from Spanish and Portuguese control to British and later American neo-colonial influence.
The contrast with Britain's North American colonies is striking. Though the British certainly practiced mercantilism, they never achieved—or perhaps never quite attempted—the total control that Spain and Portugal imposed. North American colonists developed substantial local industries, engaged in extensive smuggling and unofficial trade, and built merchant classes with real economic power. When independence came, they possessed the institutional foundations and commercial experience to build functioning economies. Latin America, strangled by mercantilism far more thoroughly, faced a vastly more difficult path.
A Company Too Powerful—And Too Connected
Yet even Britain's comparatively lighter mercantilist touch created explosive resentment, as the tea crisis of 1773 demonstrated. The British East India Company, drowning in unsold tea and teetering on bankruptcy despite its government-granted monopoly over Asian trade, received an extraordinary gift from Parliament. The Tea Act allowed the company to sell directly to the colonies, bypassing the colonial merchants who had built their livelihoods on the tea trade. Though the measure actually lowered tea prices for consumers, it granted the EIC something more valuable than profit: absolute control over an entire market.
The vote in Parliament was hardly disinterested. Nearly a quarter of Members of Parliament—twenty to twenty-three percent—held shares in the East India Company during this period, their personal fortunes tied directly to its success. When they voted to rescue the failing company with exclusive colonial privileges, they were voting for their own portfolios as much as for imperial policy. This fusion of political power and private gain exemplified exactly what Smith meant when he warned that merchants and manufacturers would conspire with government against the public interest.
The East India Company was no ordinary business. It commanded a private army of some 200,000 soldiers—double the size of the British Army itself—and governed vast territories in India with the sovereignty that normally belonged only to nations. It was, in effect, a corporate state within the British Empire, wielding power that blurred every distinction between commerce and government, between private profit and public policy.
Colonial merchants understood immediately what the Tea Act meant. If Parliament could award one monopoly, it could award others. Today tea, tomorrow perhaps all colonial commerce might be parceled out to politically connected companies in London. When tea ships arrived in Boston Harbor that December, locals dressed as Mohawks dumped 342 chests of the East India Company's tea into the cold water—a revolt not merely against taxation, but against a system where lawmakers enriched themselves at colonial expense.
Smith's Assault on the System
This was precisely the sort of arrangement that infuriated Adam Smith. Throughout The Wealth of Nations, he returned repeatedly to his contempt for merchants and manufacturers who sought government favor. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion," he wrote in one of his most quoted passages, "but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." In another passage, he warned that proposals from merchants "ought always to be listened to with great precaution...It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
The East India Company embodied everything Smith despised: a private concern wielding government power to extract wealth while providing poor service and high prices—with the added corruption that those granting the privileges often profited personally from them. Smith himself described his book as "the very violent attack I had made upon the whole commercial system of Great Britain."
He could have said the same about the Spanish and Portuguese systems, which represented mercantilism in its most destructive form. Where Britain's mercantilism created resentment and rebellion among its North American colonists, Iberian mercantilism created economic structures so distorted that they cripple development to this day.
The Invisible Hand—Misunderstood for Centuries
Smith's central insight challenged two centuries of economic orthodoxy. Real wealth, he argued, didn't consist of gold and silver sitting in royal treasuries, but in a nation's productive capacity—its ability to provide goods and services that improved people's lives. And that productive capacity flourished not through government direction but through individuals freely pursuing their own interests in open markets.
His famous "invisible hand" metaphor has been elevated to legendary status in modern economics, yet Smith used the phrase just three times across all his writings. The first appeared in an early essay on the history of astronomy, where it described ancient people attributing natural phenomena to "the invisible hand of Jupiter"—a reference to superstition, not markets. The second use appeared in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, where Smith observed that wealthy landowners, despite their "natural selfishness and rapacity," end up distributing some wealth simply because they cannot consume everything themselves. The third, and most famous, appeared in The Wealth of Nations on a single page, describing how a merchant preferring domestic investment out of fear of foreign risks unintentionally benefits his nation.
That's it. Three uses. None of them describing a universal economic law. None suggesting that markets automatically produce optimal outcomes. None arguing that greed reliably serves the public good. The invisible hand was an observation about occasional unintended consequences, not a doctrine of systematic market perfection.
Yet over the twentieth century, that modest metaphor transformed into an economic ideology. Economists from the Chicago School, policymakers from the Reagan era, and pro-market think tanks elevated it into a mandate against regulation. The invisible hand became synonymous with laissez-faire capitalism—a philosophy Smith himself would likely have rejected.
What Smith Actually Believed
Smith was a moral philosopher who helped invent what we now call economics - the discipline didn't exist as a separate field when he began his work. He spent his career studying human behavior, sympathy, and the foundations of ethical society. Long before The Wealth of Nations, he wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments, arguing that societies function only when people behave with decency and mutual responsibility. He didn't believe greed drives prosperity. He believed morality does, channeled through properly structured institutions.
This background is crucial to understanding why Smith's economics looks so different from the caricature attributed to him. He wasn't writing a technical manual for unleashing self-interest; he was exploring how commercial society could function morally and productively. His economic insights emerged from his broader philosophical project of understanding human nature and social organization.
This wasn't an argument for economic anarchy. Smith believed government had essential roles: providing defense, administering justice, building infrastructure that private investment wouldn't provide, educating the public, and regulating banking to prevent financial instability. What he opposed was government picking winners and losers, granting special privileges to connected insiders, and restricting the natural liberty of individuals to work and trade as they saw fit.
Drawing from the Same Well
Smith and the American founders never collaborated, yet they drew from the same intellectual springs. John Locke's arguments about natural rights and property permeate both The Wealth of Nations and the Declaration of Independence. Locke had insisted that individuals possessed inherent rights that preceded government, and that legitimate authority required consent of the governed. For Jefferson, this meant the right to overthrow tyranny. For Smith, it meant the natural liberty to dispose of one's labor and property without artificial restraints.
David Hume, Smith's close friend and intellectual companion in the Scottish Enlightenment, influenced thinking on both sides of the Atlantic. His essays questioning mercantilist assumptions about money and trade shaped Smith's economic analysis. His political writings on liberty and the dangers of faction informed James Madison's constitutional thinking. Both revolutions—the intellectual one Smith led and the political one the founders fought—reflected the Scottish Enlightenment's fundamental conviction that human institutions should be judged by whether they promoted human flourishing, not by tradition or authority.
After the Revolution
Smith's book didn't inspire the American Revolution—the chronology makes that impossible. But his ideas found fertile ground in the new nation. Alexander Hamilton, crafting economic policy for the fledgling republic, studied The Wealth of Nations carefully, though he would diverge from Smith's free trade principles in favoring tariffs to protect infant American industries. Thomas Jefferson owned a copy and absorbed its arguments about the benefits of commerce and the dangers of monopoly. The Constitution's Commerce Clause, giving Congress power to regulate trade among the states, reflected both colonial frustration with British restrictions and emerging ideas about the benefits of open markets within a unified nation.
Yet neither the American founders nor Smith himself advocated the pure laissez-faire that later generations would claim to find in their works. Both understood that markets required frameworks of law, infrastructure, and education to function properly. Both opposed monopoly and special privilege while recognizing legitimate roles for government. The Revolution they shared was against mercantilism's heavy hand of restriction and favoritism, not against government itself.
An Enduring Legacy—And Warning
The twin revolutions of 1776—one intellectual, one political—challenged the assumption that prosperity flowed from government control and that liberty was a privilege to be granted rather than a right to be respected. Smith demonstrated that voluntary exchange in open markets could coordinate millions of individual decisions into productive order. The American founders demonstrated that people could govern themselves without monarchical or mercantilist direction.
Neither revolution was complete or perfect. Smith's vision of market society underestimated how private power could replicate the monopolistic abuses he attributed to government favor. The American founders' vision of liberty coexisted uneasily with slavery and would take generations to even begin fulfilling its promise of equality. And Latin America's later revolutions, achieved only after Napoleon's invasion disrupted Iberian control, could not quickly undo centuries of extractive mercantilism that had systematically prevented the development of diversified, independent economies.
The Iberian colonial experience stands as history's clearest warning about mercantilism's long-term costs. Where Smith warned theoretically about the dangers of extractive policies and monopolistic control, Spanish and Portuguese America lived those dangers for three centuries. The economic development gap between North and South America—a gap that persists into the twenty-first century—traces substantially to the difference between British mercantilism, oppressive as it was, and the far more totalizing Spanish and Portuguese systems that left their colonies with almost no foundation for independent economic life.
Smith's Warnings, Today's Reality
What's most striking is how Smith's fears have materialized in forms he could scarcely have imagined. In the twenty-first century, technology giants wield influence over information and commerce that dwarfs anything the East India Company achieved. A handful of corporations control the digital infrastructure through which modern economic and social life flows. Defense contractors have grown so intertwined with government that the boundary between public and private military power has become nearly invisible—the very phenomenon Smith observed with alarm in the East India Company's private army.
The mechanisms Smith warned about operate with remarkable consistency across centuries. Corporations lobby intensively for favorable regulations, tax provisions, and government contracts. Industries consolidate until a few dominant players can effectively set prices and terms. Companies deemed "too big to fail" receive government support precisely because their collapse would damage the broader economy—creating the same moral hazard that led Parliament to rescue the failing East India Company in 1773. The revolving door between corporate boardrooms and regulatory agencies would have been instantly recognizable to Smith as the merchant class capturing the apparatus of government.
Big Tech companies suppress potential competitors through acquisition or predatory pricing. Defense contractors maintain dominant positions through relationships with Pentagon officials and members of Congress, many of whom hold stock in these companies or receive campaign contributions from them. The pattern Smith identified—where roughly a quarter of MPs held East India Company shares—has contemporary echoes in the financial entanglements between lawmakers and the industries they ostensibly regulate.
Smith feared merchants gaining enough influence to "intimidate the legislature." Today's corporate lobbying expenditures dwarf the GDP of many nations. He warned that when businessmen become "formidable to the government," they twist public policy to private advantage. Modern regulatory capture—where industries effectively write the rules meant to constrain them—realizes Smith's nightmare in precise detail. He cautioned that "the interest of [businessmen] is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public." Yet policy discourse often treats what benefits large corporations as synonymous with public welfare.
The irony cuts deep. Smith's name is invoked constantly to justify corporate power and resist regulation, yet Smith himself would likely view today's concentrated corporate giants with the same horror he reserved for the East India Company. He called that company a "bloodstained monopoly" and a "destructive force that distorted markets and corrupted governments." What would he call corporations that accumulate detailed profiles on billions of people, or defense contractors whose profits depend on continuous military engagement, or pharmaceutical companies that use patent law to maintain monopoly pricing on essential medicines?
The modern version of mercantilism operates through different mechanisms than royal charters and exclusive trading rights, but the underlying dynamic remains unchanged: those with sufficient wealth and political connections shape the rules to preserve and extend their advantages. The monopolies are called "platforms" and "ecosystems" rather than royal grants, but they produce the same outcome—concentrated economic power that ordinary market forces cannot effectively challenge.
The Revolution Unfinished
When colonists dressed as Mohawks dumped tea into Boston Harbor, they weren't just protesting a tax. They were rejecting the principle that their economic lives should be subordinated to the interests of a politically connected monopoly three thousand miles away—a monopoly in which their own supposed representatives held financial stakes. Today's challenge is remarkably similar: rejecting the principle that economic life should be dominated by corporations so large and politically entrenched that competition becomes largely theoretical.
When Adam Smith wrote of the invisible hand, he wasn't just describing market mechanics. He was articulating why ordinary people, left free to pursue their own betterment within proper institutional frameworks, might build prosperity more effectively than any government plan, particularly one corrupted by private interests. But the critical phrase is "within proper institutional frameworks." Smith never imagined those frameworks could simply dissolve in the face of corporate power, leaving the market dominated by the very concentrations of private power he spent his career warning against.
Both Smith and the American founders understood what their opponents had forgotten: that freedom, whether political or economic, wasn't a luxury to be granted by authorities but a foundation on which human flourishing could be built. But both also understood that freedom required vigilance—against monopoly, against corruption, against the concentration of power whether public or private.
The bitter experience of Latin America under Spanish and Portuguese rule proved what happened when mercantilism's extractive logic operated without restraint for centuries. The North American colonies faced a milder version and rebelled after decades. Today's economy features concentrations of corporate power that would have stunned even the directors of the East India Company, operating with a degree of political influence that makes the problem of MPs holding Company shares look quaint by comparison.
In 1776, the idea that freedom required vigilant defense against concentrated power—whether in the form of monarchical authority or corporate monopoly—was genuinely revolutionary. That it remains revolutionary today, despite two and a half centuries of experience confirming Smith's warnings, suggests how thoroughly we have forgotten the actual lessons of 1776. The revolution against mercantilism succeeded politically but remains frustratingly incomplete economically. Smith would not be surprised. He warned us this would happen if we weren't careful. We named economic theories after him, then proceeded to ignore nearly everything he actually said.
Comments
Post a Comment