Critics Of Capitalism Misunderstand Economic Success
"More importantly: this is not a vision reduced to material things..."
By Franco Guevara, Mises Institute
A few weeks ago, during a group conversation in a friendly setting, one of the participants said he admired another for his “great professional [economic] success.” It wasn’t flattery or superficial. It was a sober and sincere expression—or at least that’s how I perceived it. Yet the reaction from the others was disconcerting: an awkward pause, followed by nervous, mocking laughter.
But it wasn’t just mockery. There was also a subtle air of moral superiority. It seemed, to some, that the remark sounded materialistic—out of place in a context where something more “human” or “spiritual” was expected to prevail. As if admiring economic success were somehow vulgar, unworthy of “cultured” individuals.
That objection—for the purposes of this article—stems from a confusion. To assume that economic success is superficial is to ignore the fact that, under conditions of liberty, voluntary exchanges reflect decisions about how best to serve others’ needs. Economic success—when it is not the result of coercive privileges or crony capitalism—is not mere accumulation, it is the visible expression of private virtue translated into public utility. In that sense, it is not reductively materialistic, but profoundly ethical. Its ethical nature lies in the fact that such success only arises when others freely choose to validate it through their actions.
The discomfort was not spontaneous. As Agustín Laje warns, modern progressive discourse reduces everything to a dialectic of oppressor and oppressed. In that framework, the capitalist, the entrepreneur—the economically successful individual—is not seen as a benefactor, but as a disguised oppressor.
But this view stems from a fundamental error: the belief that the economy is a zero-sum game. As the Austrians argue, the entrepreneur enriches himself by better anticipating the subjective value something holds for others. Profit is not a sign of exploitation; it is a mark of discovery. Rothbard and Mises reinforce this idea with a simple but powerful truth: every voluntary exchange implies mutual benefit—otherwise, it wouldn’t occur. Profit is not parasitism; it is cooperation.
What if someone found the cure for cancer, sold it for ten dollars, and a billion people bought it? That person would become one of the richest in history—and one of the most valuable. Who would dare call them an exploiter?
Entrepreneurial success also activates virtuous cycles. The entrepreneur who succeeds creates jobs; those jobs generate income, and that income turns into saving or consumption. Both send signals to the market: what society wants, in what quantity, with what quality, and at what price. As Hayek explained, that order is not designed—it emerges. And as Israel Kirzner taught, the entrepreneur is the one who discovers and corrects those mismatches.
But the impact of the entrepreneur goes beyond economics: it inspires. In societies with libertarian tendencies, success can spark a kind of positive envy. In contrast, where another’s success is seen as structural injustice, what emerges is a culture of grievance and victimhood.
Of course, we are not talking here about crony capitalism—that statist virus which, as Jesús Huerta de Soto warns, is the real contaminant of modern society.
That is why, when someone expresses admiration for economic success, don’t dismiss them as simplistic. Perhaps—consciously or unconsciously—they are recognizing something profound: that in a free society, legitimate economic success does not fall from the sky or come by force. It is the result of serving others better than anyone else. Behind every fortune lies effort, risk, savings, time, discovery, validation, and social coordination.
More importantly: this is not a vision reduced to material things. It is about recognizing that genuine economic success is the visible expression of deeply human virtues: effort, self-improvement, intertemporal responsibility, respect for others’ liberty, and the capacity to create value. It is not a frivolous idea. It is a philosophical, moral, and civilizational one.
In the words of Bastos: “Capitalism, saving, and hard work. There is nothing else!”
QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.
This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.
While I agree with the broader point, I think it is overshadowed because there are clear exceptions to the rule. Most visibly wealthy people in Western culture are clearly not virtuous. They hold and enact destructive luxury beliefs they can only "get away with" because of their wealth, and convince many to self-destruct by their example. Almost any "Hollywood star" can serve as an example here. Many have become wealthy because they have discovered a way to use the coercive power of an almost all powerful government to direct wealth their direction--such as vaccine makers and purveyors, many large-scale business owners, and financiers. Many of the conspicuously wealthy have become wealthy by externalizing almost every negative, particularly risks (think of the bankers who paid no price for the financial failures who ruined the lives of millions) and costs (think of Amazon and other companies who pay low wages, forcing workers to produce value while taking part of their income from the taxpayer ... think of the push for cheap immigrant labor). Many conspicuously wealthy gained their wealth via inheritance, or divorce--they didn't earn it, they "fell into it."
The principle is sound, but the exceptions are big enough hole to drive a truck through. Collectivism is not an answer--because the problem is human nature. When a government gets out of the business of encouraging virtue, and turns instead to operating to increase the wealth and power of a subset of a society, the result will always be the denigration and fall of "the wealthy." This is bad for the person who honestly earned their wealth, and this is one of the many mechanisms governments use to destroy public virtue (which I believe is an intentional, rather than incidental, goal).
Rent seeking and other poor behaviors destroy public virtue, which "forces" government to become larger, increasing the levels of rent seeking, in an almost endless cycle--at least until government crashes and burns. The hope of every utopian progressive is that some technology or technique will "come along" that will allow the elites to protect themselves against the crash perfectly and forever, creating a permanent neo-feudalism, where people who do not own any land produce value and die, and those who own all the land party and indulge themselves in nonsense.
A second problem with this argument is we humans tend to confuse dignity with moral virtue illustrated via wealth. There are many virtuous people in the world who never gain wealth for one reason or another. Sometimes they lose their wealth to government coercion. Sometimes they lose their wealth to the failure of personal relationships (which normally happens because the greed of one person overcomes their virtue).
Again, these are human problems with no economic or governmental solutions.
I'm on a productivity kick these days. I don't question how much a person makes, I question how much they produce. Those who increase value have a right to claim that value for themselves. And then sell it, if they want to. That can involve actual production, or transportation of raw materials and finished products. Or any other such thing.
We all seem to agree that there are shortages, in spite of today's technology being able to produce goods more efficiently and in greater quantity than ever before. So, why is there a housing shortage? Why is there a healthcare shortage? My guess is, Too many chiefs, not enough Indians.