Saving Capitalism
For the Many, Not the Few
Book Edition Details
Summary
In an era where the so-called "free market" reigns supreme, Robert B. Reich uncovers the unsettling truth behind America’s economic facade. With Saving Capitalism, Reich doesn’t just dissect the entrenched power of an emerging oligarchy and a shrinking middle class; he exposes the cleverly masked influence of wealthy elites steering the system to their advantage. As myths crumble—like the notion that a higher minimum wage destroys jobs or that workers are paid their worth—Reich calls for a revival of civic power to counterbalance corporate greed. This insightful critique is not merely a lament of our economic woes; it is a fervent manifesto for change, aimed at those yearning for a fairer system. Through clear-eyed analysis and an urgent plea for reform, Reich charts a hopeful path toward an economic future that serves all, not just the privileged few.
Introduction
The prevailing narrative about capitalism suggests that free markets naturally reward merit and hard work, while government intervention distorts these efficient outcomes. This conventional wisdom has shaped decades of policy debates, pitting "free market" advocates against those favoring government redistribution. Yet this framing fundamentally misunderstands how markets actually function and obscures the real mechanisms driving today's extreme inequality. Markets are not natural phenomena that exist independently of human institutions. They are created and sustained by rules—about property, monopoly, contracts, bankruptcy, and enforcement—that determine who gets what from the economy's output. These rules are not neutral or inevitable; they reflect political choices about how to organize economic life. When a relative few gain increasing influence over these foundational rules, they can shape markets to channel wealth upward, creating the illusion that such outcomes result from natural market forces rather than political decisions. The challenge facing modern capitalism is not whether to have more or less government, but rather who controls the rules that govern markets. Understanding this distinction reveals how seemingly technical decisions about patent lengths, bankruptcy priorities, and contract enforcement actually constitute a hidden system of upward redistribution. By examining how these rules operate and who shapes them, we can begin to see past the ideological smokescreen that obscures the real sources of economic inequality and political power concentration.
Markets as Political Constructs: How Rules Redistribute Wealth Upward
The most significant redistribution of wealth in recent decades has not occurred through visible government programs that transfer money from rich to poor. Instead, it has happened through changes to the basic rules that structure markets, creating what amounts to an invisible system of upward redistribution built into the economy's foundation. Consider how intellectual property rules have evolved. Patent and copyright protections have been steadily extended in duration and scope, allowing companies to maintain monopoly pricing power for longer periods. Pharmaceutical companies engage in "product hopping"—making minor modifications to drugs nearing patent expiration to extend their exclusive rights. These practices, enabled by favorable rule changes, allow companies to extract higher prices from consumers while blocking generic competition. The additional costs are dispersed across millions of consumers in small amounts, making them nearly invisible, while the benefits flow to a concentrated few in large amounts. Similarly, bankruptcy rules have been rewritten to favor large creditors over workers, homeowners, and small businesses. When corporations enter bankruptcy, they can void union contracts and pension obligations while protecting payments to major financial institutions. Individual debtors, meanwhile, face increasingly strict requirements, with student loans exempted entirely from bankruptcy relief. These rule changes represent a systematic reallocation of risk and reward that operates through market mechanisms rather than explicit government transfers. The enforcement of market rules has also been systematically weakened in ways that benefit powerful interests. Regulatory agencies operate with insufficient funding and staff, while corporate legal teams can overwhelm government enforcement efforts. When violations are discovered, penalties are often too small to deter future misconduct, effectively licensing illegal behavior for those who can afford the fines. This creates a two-tiered system where market rules apply differently depending on one's economic power, further concentrating wealth among those already at the top.
Debunking Merit-Based Pay: Why Compensation Reflects Power Not Worth
The belief that people are paid according to their economic contribution provides moral legitimacy for extreme inequality, but this meritocratic ideal bears little resemblance to how compensation is actually determined in modern capitalism. Executive pay provides the clearest example of how market power, rather than merit, drives compensation outcomes. CEO compensation has exploded not because executives have become dramatically more productive, but because they have gained greater control over the rules governing their own pay. Corporate boards, supposedly representing shareholders' interests, are often selected by the very executives they are meant to oversee. "Say on pay" votes by shareholders are typically non-binding, and even when they fail, boards rarely respond by reducing compensation. The result is a system where executives effectively set their own pay, using stock options and buybacks to extract value from companies regardless of performance. The rise of stock-based compensation illustrates how rule changes enable wealth extraction. Until 1982, stock buybacks were considered market manipulation. When this restriction was lifted, companies gained a new tool for inflating share prices precisely when executives cash in their stock options. This practice diverts resources from productive investment while enriching those with advance knowledge of buyback timing. The supposed alignment between executive pay and company performance becomes a mechanism for transferring wealth from shareholders and workers to corporate leadership. Wall Street compensation operates through similar dynamics. The largest banks benefit from implicit government guarantees that allow them to borrow at below-market rates, effectively subsidizing their operations. This "too big to fail" subsidy flows directly to bank employees in the form of higher compensation, while the risks are borne by taxpayers. High-frequency trading and other practices that extract value from market inefficiencies generate enormous profits not through productive activity, but through privileged access to information and technology that allows financial firms to front-run other investors. The meritocracy myth obscures how market rules determine compensation outcomes independently of individual merit or social contribution. When these rules are shaped by those who benefit from them, the resulting inequality reflects power relationships rather than economic productivity or moral desert.
The Collapse of Countervailing Forces in Democratic Capitalism
The extreme concentration of wealth and power in contemporary capitalism reflects not just the rise of corporate influence, but the simultaneous decline of institutions that once provided countervailing power. This erosion of balancing forces has allowed moneyed interests to reshape market rules with minimal opposition. Labor unions, which once gave workers collective bargaining power, have seen their membership decline from over 30 percent of the workforce in the 1950s to less than 7 percent in the private sector today. This decline resulted from deliberate policy choices: right-to-work laws that weaken union finances, trade agreements that facilitate job outsourcing, and enforcement agencies that impose minimal penalties for union-busting. As workers lost collective power, they also lost political influence over the rules governing employment, trade, and corporate governance. The broader ecosystem of civic organizations that once channeled citizen preferences to political leaders has similarly withered. Membership organizations with local chapters and bottom-up governance structures have been replaced by professional advocacy groups that mobilize financial contributions rather than active participation. This transformation has left ordinary citizens with fewer vehicles for collective action, while corporations and wealthy individuals have expanded their political influence through lobbying, campaign contributions, and revolving-door relationships with government officials. Even the two major political parties have evolved from membership-based organizations rooted in local communities into fundraising operations dependent on corporate and wealthy donors. Democratic politicians, despite rhetorical differences with Republicans, have increasingly adopted pro-business policies on financial regulation, trade, and corporate governance. The result is a political system responsive primarily to moneyed interests, regardless of which party holds power. The decline of countervailing power has created a vicious cycle: as economic inequality increases, political influence becomes more concentrated, enabling further rule changes that accelerate inequality. Breaking this cycle requires rebuilding institutions that can effectively challenge corporate power and restore democratic control over the rules that govern markets.
Reforming Market Rules to Restore Broadly Shared Prosperity
Addressing extreme inequality requires moving beyond debates about the size of government to focus on who controls the rules that structure markets. Rather than accepting current distributions of wealth as natural market outcomes, democratic societies can choose rules that spread prosperity more broadly while maintaining incentives for innovation and investment. Campaign finance reform represents a crucial first step toward restoring democratic control over market rules. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which treats corporate spending as protected speech, has accelerated the concentration of political influence among wealthy interests. Reversing this decision through constitutional amendment or judicial reconsideration would help level the political playing field. Additional reforms—including public campaign financing, disclosure requirements for political spending, and restrictions on lobbying by former officials—could further reduce the influence of money in politics. Reforming the rules themselves offers more direct approaches to addressing inequality. Patent and copyright terms could be shortened to prevent excessive monopoly pricing. Antitrust enforcement could be strengthened to break up concentrated industries and prevent anti-competitive practices. Bankruptcy laws could be rewritten to give workers and homeowners priority over financial creditors. Contract rules could prohibit forced arbitration clauses that deny workers and consumers access to courts. Corporate governance reforms could realign incentives within large companies. Tax policies that reward companies for maintaining reasonable ratios between executive and worker pay could encourage more equitable compensation structures. Requirements for worker representation on corporate boards, common in Germany and other developed countries, could give employees a voice in decisions that affect their livelihoods. Restrictions on stock buybacks could redirect corporate resources toward productive investment rather than financial manipulation. The goal is not to eliminate markets or private enterprise, but to ensure that market rules serve broad social purposes rather than narrow private interests. When markets operate within a framework of democratic accountability, they can generate prosperity that benefits society as a whole rather than concentrating wealth among a privileged few.
Summary
The central insight emerging from this analysis is that markets are not natural forces operating independently of human choice, but rather institutional arrangements whose rules determine how economic gains are distributed throughout society. The extreme inequality characterizing contemporary capitalism results not from inevitable market dynamics or differences in individual merit, but from the systematic capture of rule-making processes by those who benefit most from current arrangements. Recognizing this reality opens possibilities for democratic societies to reshape market institutions in ways that restore broadly shared prosperity while preserving the innovation and efficiency that markets can provide. This perspective offers hope that capitalism can be reformed rather than abandoned, but only through sustained political engagement aimed at reclaiming democratic control over the rules that govern economic life.
Related Books
Download PDF & EPUB
To save this Black List summary for later, download the free PDF and EPUB. You can print it out, or read offline at your convenience.
By Robert B. Reich
