The relationship between “race,” and economic and political special interest groups, is inherently complex. On one level, race is a single construct or concept allowing for the identifying of the nature of the relationship in terms of multiple groups. On another, however, race is a construct often created by subjective knowledge production. More exactly, it is usually determined by how the dominant group, or the majority race, perceives the members of the race and create racialization, as the perceived and subjective ideas become accepted as actual knowledge. This is an ability enabled by privilege, and because the dominant race controls how the society and the economy function through holding the positions of power. Consequently, special interest groups exist to either support or oppress the race in question, and by virtue of how it is seen by the society at large. This connects to racial projects, which are the literal efforts and behaviors of the society that further define the racial identity, and are expressions of special interest group agendas. Economic groups, for example, may create conditions denying members of a race opportunity, as when a business coalition or union, like the Teamsters, takes measures to exclude minority races.

However, other interest groups like the NAACP exist to promote opportunity. This group in particular promotes the raising of awareness in U.S. society, and in order to eliminate the exploitation of all “people of color.” Organizations like the NAACP have in fact generated the legislating of morality in a specific and ethical way; in fighting for the rights of the race(s), they are responsible for raising the society’s awareness to the point of outlawing discriminatory practices. This in turn impacts on the role of the race within the free market. The relationship here, in fact, and as with that of race and special interest groups, is exponential. Groups that deny races opportunity create markets perpetuating the discrimination and encouraging poverty in those races; denied opportunities to earn, the members of the race cannot share in consumerism as can the dominant race. Conversely, those groups that promote race advancement or make no racial distinctions help to enable the opportunities for all to earn, and for all races to then more actively contribute to the free market.

Regarding Milton Friedman’s theory of the free market, and as opposed to Keynes, there is a central argument that defies the idea of welfare. In basic terms, Friedman holds that governmental intervention in any aspect of the economy is usually damaging, and counter-productive to how the forces of supply and demand will inevitably create a balanced market. This being the case, welfare is seen as a variation of the disastrous Federal Reserve policies of the Depression years. It is a governmental effort to “equalize” income but, as it is contrived and removed from the mechanisms of the economy itself, it can only create further problems. As Friedman would see it, welfare is a short-term solution to a problem demanding a long-term response. In a genuinely “free” free market, conversely, income equality is more assured because supply and demand themselves will promote equality; the freedom of all to work and spend is encouraged because no artificial restraints are in place.

It is true that Friedman’s free market does not guarantee the elimination of racism or other forces denying opportunity, and consequently denying certain groups from fully participating in the economy. Nonetheless, and as a strictly economic theory, the free market is far more likely to be inclusive of all. Poverty serves the real interests of no group, and because those living at or under the poverty line must undercut the health of the economy itself. Welfare is then no solution because it negates incentive on the part of those denied, and consequently weakens the competitive capitalism driving the free market. Ultimately, Friedman’s thinking is more moral than any governmental interference in the economy, and because it is more rational for an economy which, like the U.S.’s, is based on supply and demand as generating competition in the market itself.

It must be reiterated, in fact, that the free market, when allowed to exist in its pure form, is the best means of ending racism and changing incorrect ideas about acquiring wealth. In plain terms, greedy people, or those consistently concerned only with increasing their personal wealth, will often express racism because they perceive that, if other races are allowed to fully participate in the economy, their interests and potentials for gain will be threatened. Greedy people essentially prefer control, which in turn goes to the exclusion of anything seen as undesirable or a risk. This is misguided thinking, however. The free market allows for greater numbers of people participating within the economy, and all opportunity is advanced when an economy becomes more expansive.

As the greedy individuals understand this, then, racism fades because the exclusion ends. What is necessary is that all those in control of the market not free comprehend the simple reality of the pencil. As Friedman observes, the rightness of the free market is clear when a simple lead pencil is seen for what it is: the product of the efforts of untold and very different numbers of people. It is unimportant that these people do not actually interact; what matters is that their combined efforts work to the benefit of all, and this is the truth of the free market. Moreover, the true free market functions well in times of peace and war, as supply and demand adapt to the changing conditions. Logically sound, the free market then also discourages the evils of racism, as all are one within the society in wanting to benefit from a thriving economy.

Lastly, the statement that the free market is racist towards failures is misleading and basically false in all ways. The free market is in fact not about race or racism at all, and the statement employs the word only to indicate a severe hostility to a thing. Then, breaking down the terms reveals the inaccuracy of the statement. Racism and discrimination are, to begin with, matters of cause and effect; the racist feels hostile to members of a race and thus enables tangible discrimination, as in denial of rights and opportunity. The free market, however, is impersonal and in an excellent way. It has nothing to do with race, culture, gender, or any other way in which people define one another. It is concerned only with competition as arising from supply and demand channels. It is not racist because the word implies active and focused dislike, and failures in the free market occur through bad choices alone.

The market itself does not act on success or failure; it only allows for these consequences. Then, the free market, as discussed, must work against actual racism. Turning to a famous example in a different way, the action of Rosa Parks, in refusing as a black woman to give up her seat on the bus, represents the meaninglessness of racism when the free market is embraced. More exactly, it is arguable that Parks’s statement was not really about race, but about the right of a citizen to occupy a seat for which she paid. The efforts to remove her then reveal how weak and foolish racism is, and how it so easily harms the interests of all concerned. All of this being the case, the statement that the free market is racist in any way is essentially false.