Why? What the hell is 'the market' to which he, and many others, refer? The ca-pital-sino that we see everyday?
Actually, if I step back a bit, I can see that many who argue for capitalism are also believers. Or, that is their claim. One has to wonder what they believe given that their actions are many times counter to the 'spirit' of Christ (assuming Christian leanings, we're talking US of A, okay?).
Now, if they would say that we have Capitalism by Revelation, then we could talk about how this came about. That, of course, would lift Adam Smith to the level of a Prophet. Gosh, he's rolling in his grave about now.
If we don't have capitalism from a prophet, from whence do we have that which Adam used 'invisible hand' to describe as he tried to explain some phenomenon via metaphor? Do these modern folks really think that Adam, whose work was about 400 years ago, can be used now given all that we've learned?
That is, Adam as an example of his time is okay. Adam as chief revealer of economic truth is not.
Some gloat that 'the market' is more efficient than other means. Yet, from whence will they show proof for their position (beyond offering those who exploited the system to the state of fat cast at the detriment of the many?)? Some use suspicious means to model what might be called a market, we think that we can show. The approach has to be constructive. The first 'revelation' is that there is no 'the market' despite all the mania that we see daily.
Yet, there is a systematic way that we could provide a just economy. But, it would take more work (not labor, that's a role) that many may want to offer.
Of course, all this economic flimflam accompanies oodles of oops.
10/26/2010 -- Adam knew the failings of 'free markets' quite well.
10/14/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.