"The invisible hand was invoked not to draw attention to the problem of state intervention, but of state capture" It's not so easy to separate the two. Interve

"The invisible hand was invoked not to draw attention to the problem of state intervention, but of state capture" It's not so easy to separate the two. Intervention tends to have winners and losers, which make the decision makers a big target for all kinds of influence. Especially in a large country like the US, where a single representative (on average) controls maybe $5B in yearly spending, plus all of the indirect ways they can pick winners and losers. That doesn't mean it's impossible to have intervention without capture, but it's something to be wary of. Aside: I don't like the word "capture" as though the poor politicians are somehow kidnapped by evil corporations. I suspect the idea of corruption usually starts with a politician looking for opportunities to exercise their power. Then, it quickly becomes a symbiotic relationship.