I will admit he did critique it, by ignoring the inequality I meant more found it worth it. It would benefit the Rich and reach the poor over time, It would “trickle down” so to say. I find his writing Interesting and I'm not trying to insult him. He was critical to a point sure, but he ignored quite a bit. You can say he was right that market growth reached the poor because it did somewhat, but it created all new problems for the ones on the bottom as well. I do find the invisible hand of self-regulating markets to be 100% idealism.
Discussion
yes, but your confusing a modern tendency & backprojecting it onto adam's smith overall political project, capitalism was trying to free people FROM rent seeking while modern capitalism seek TO extract more rent from the entire economy by disguising trickle down economics as wealth creation.
when endentured servants were incorporated to bourgeois society & afforded the rights of englishmen, they moved further inward into colonial america, & the people that had endentured servants started to need to rely on other unfree laborers to carry out their tasks, but the economic concensus was starting to be had that endentured servants & gradually slaves would have the screws loosened up just like endentured servants & slaveowners would have to once again incorperate themselves with broader free labor/business society
That is, unless of course some technology (like the cotton gin) would be developed & would actually cause slavery to intensify & cause free labor to be put on pause & actually would necessitate that slaveowners tighten the screws on slavery.
as a matter of fact, one of the things that jefferson was thoroughly disturbed on his death bed is he didnt know how the problem of the slave owning south would be dealt with, & the fact that none of the european nation states supported the enfranchisement of slaves & america sought out to copy their institutions kinda explains why theres so many problems in modern america