Another episode of mastering yourself to become the trader you want ; Trading truly reveals alot of your flaws and where your character needs improvement
In this conversation with Trevor Noah, Simon Sinek pretends capitalism was all rainbows and sunshine until that bad man Milton Friedman ruined it in 1970.
As if the origins of capitalism were not based on pillaging Madeira Island, slavery, imperialism and colonialism across the entire planet.
Listening to Sinek, you’d swear the Dutch East India Company was a charity organisation before Friedman came along and “bastardised” capitalism.
In reality, capitalism was so bad in the US that they started calling capitalists “robber barons” in the 1800s, because that’s the natural state of capitalism.
Influencers like Sinek like to paint a mythical “golden era” where Adam Smith’s vision was flourishing, right up until Milton Friedman published his essay in a newspaper declaring that a corporation’s sole responsibility is to maximise shareholder profit.
In truth, long before Friedman wrote a single word, the late 19th-century American “Gilded Age” displayed unchecked corporate power at its peak. John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie actively crushed competition, fixed prices and built trusts.
These Robber Barons used their obscene wealth to buy politicians, secure state bailouts/subsidies and crush labour strikes using government troops. This was not Adam Smith’s vision of fair competition among many small players.
Sinek references the famous 1776 line from The Wealth of Nations about the butcher, the baker, and the brewer acting out of self-interest to provide goods. However, Smith was writing about economic theory rather than the actual economy of the 18th century, which was already deeply tied to colonial monopolies, state-sponsored corporate charters such as the East India Companies, and, of course, transatlantic slavery.
In fact, when you look at what Sinek says Adam Smith was describing, you realise it’s really just trade and commerce. Smith never even used the word “capitalism”. When he wrote The Wealth of Nations, the term didn’t even exist. Instead, he described what he called a “commercial society”.
The markets, commerce, specialisation, and trade, which Sinek alludes to, have existed for thousands of years across almost every human civilisation. So, Smith was observing localised market interactions where small producers exchanged goods directly with their neighbours, and NOT capitalism.
We know Adam Smith wasn’t thinking about capitalism because “capitalism” as a distinct socioeconomic framework defined by private ownership of the means of production, large-scale industrial capital, wage labour, and financial markets was only named and analysed decades later by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Karl Marx and others.
Most importantly, people who quote Smith to defend capitalism often ignore how intensely critical he was of merchants, business owners, and corporate monopolies. He warned about how people of the same trade rarely meet together without the conversation ending in a “conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
Smith was also deeply sceptical of large corporations like the Dutch East India Company, considered the first capitalist organisation in human history, arguing that managers handling other people’s money would inevitably succumb to “negligence and profusion” compared to owners managing their own affairs.
So, by using Smith’s butcher/baker example to represent “good capitalism” vs. Friedman’s “bad capitalism,” Sinek conflates normal trade with capitalism and treats the former as some type of awesome, traditional capitalism.
In summation, contrary to what Sinek and others like him say, when a local baker makes good bread to beat the baker down the street, that’s normal market trade and commerce, but when a private equity firm buys the bakery, slashes employee benefits, uses cheap ingredients, buys back stock to boost executive bonuses, and goes bankrupt, *that* is capitalism.