Adam Smith, the "father" of capitalism, never advocated "winner take all," which the Republicans now advocate.
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
The essays Greenspan contributed to the 1966 collection [by Ayn Rand], like the rest of the book, praised the idea of unfettered, unrestricted, unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism. Sure, there were problems in the system as it existed at the time, but those problems were not the fault of capitalism. Real capitalism, pure capitalism, had never been tried. Under pure capitalism, there would be a complete "separation of capitalism and state," and the resulting markets would be self-governing and self-correcting. It was only the intrusion of regulations into the system that brought on instability and immorality. Kick government out, and the system would not only flourish, but express the innate reasoning and positive force of selfishness. . . .