In his 1967 book The New Industrial State, the late Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith opined a view that’s been accepted by “progressives” ever since: corporations exert great power over consumers. Like zombies, we are seduced into buying things we don’t (or shouldn’t) want. Galbraith asserted that markets can’t even be trusted to produce proper goods, and surely not to allocate wealth and power fairly. Hence, a key role of the state is to buffer, direct, or end the unfair nature of markets.

Though Galbraith’s ideas have not aged well (I wonder what General Motors thinks about the impotence of consumers?), many still scorn the very idea of capitalism as an ethical system of social coordination.

The most vocal critics are often from academia, where it’s fashionable in many circles (e.g., urban planning and architecture) to believe that the uncultured masses are incapable of making the “correct” decisions about where and how to live. They know better than their inferiors. Beware these folks, for they would lead us down the Road to Serfdom.

Beginning with the “City Beautiful” movement in the late 19th century (and continuing into the 20th century with ideas proposed by Le Corbusier), planners believed that human nature could be improved through enlightened urban design.

This belief in the malleability of human nature, and the ability of planners to change it, lives on in the “New Urbanism” movement. One of its gurus, Peter Calthorpe, thinks suburbanites suffer from a “sense of frustration and placelessness.” This elitism is echoed in books like The Geography of Nowhere (suburbs are “trashy and preposterous”) and Asphalt Nation (the freedom provided by automobiles is really “vehicular bondage”).

In 1961, Jane Jacobs published The Death and Life of Great American Cities. It was a strong critique of urban renewal projects. Jacobs pointed out that vibrant urban neighborhoods develop organically according to the demands of those who live and work there. Urban renewal’s sorry history is the result of governmental interference, usually at the behest of private development interests.

These same critics decry globalization, fearing a world dominated by multinational corporations who pollute the environment and exploit workers all in the name of profits.

The World Bank notes that globalization is responsible for a “spectacular” decline in poverty in East and South Asia. This has reduced illiteracy, child labor, and fertility rates, and improved environmental quality.

Successful, sustainable businesses consistently create value for their shareholders. Of course they invest in overseas manufacturing facilities. This lowers their labor costs. But in the process, it raises the human capital of foreign workers, yielding, in time, better jobs at higher wages.

Asking if you’d want your child to work in one of these factories misses the relevant tradeoff. Many of these jobs are no doubt hard, dirty, and perhaps even dangerous. But the question to ask is: What is the next best alternative these kids have? It’s not going to school or day care, rather, in many places it’s picking through garbage dumps or working in the sex trade.

Despite the Marxist mantra to the contrary, profits really are for people. Moral philosopher Adam Smith reminds us: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

A final objection is that capitalism lacks ethical foundations. The alternative systems promise social justice and environmental Eden, but more often have delivered mass deprivation, the gulag, and Chernobyl.

The recent spread of capitalism has lowered poverty rates and created opportunities for individuals all over the world. Living standards and life expectancy have risen substantially. There is more food, more education, and more democratization, and less inequality and oppression (especially of women).

Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman observed: “The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another.”

Surely this deserves more than reflexive dismissal?