Adam Smith, in his seminal book, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" makes many valid points about the economic system, such as: the value of money as a medium of exchange, the division of labor as a form to increase productivity and allocation or resource, the negative impacts of cartels and colluding on pricing, etc. One of the most cited passages involves the one that mentions the "invisible hand," in the context of merchants preferring to engage with domestic industry rather than with foreign firms.
The passage, as conveniently shown in Wikipedia states:
As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. (Book 4, Chapter 2) - Wikipedia
Basically, Adam Smith was spot on!! Individuals do show self-interest WITHIN THE CONTEXT of the society they are in. So, the invisible hand is really the social norms that allow an individual to function in a society.
So, what is wrong with the concept of the Invisible Hand in today's world? In a world in which a handful of people own as much wealth as millions? Well, some people interpret this concept literally as if an invisible hand is magically making things work, all the while the individual selfishly pursues his or her own interest. I have heard many say they are self-made, driven entrepreneurs that will stop at nothing to succeed. That by securing their success, they are securing the success of their people. I can see how this concept is appealing: Focus on yourself, make a ton of money, build vast wealth, and your people will thank you later.
However, I have found one key distortion to be true in all cases: These people assume everyone was born with similar conditions and had access to the same opportunities. Reading books about people like Jack Welch, Oprah, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and even Barack Obama and Mitch McConnell you come out with the idea they are fighters, that they beat the odds. But in very few of these texts you see references to or acknowledgement of a society that has been warped to favor only a small set of people at the expense of many sets of others. These so called leaders often fail to take direct responsibility for promoting the distorting behaviors, such as wealth accumulation, suffocating federal, regional and local governments of much needed tax revenues, and cult of personality.
So, the invisible hand, which emerges from healthy societies in which its members are looking after each other by being their best at their trade, morphs into a monstrous shadow that obscures the lives of many to favor the few. This happens because the basis of society are eroded by disinvestment, obsolescence and trade agreements between sets of people that represent narrow interests instead of those of the broader society.
My sense is the Invisible Hand functions when society is well balanced and has strong, inclusive institutions that tend the need of almost all members. However, it becomes a problem when "the few" overpower these institutions or exert extreme influence over decision making. This is what has happened to our democracy and we need to come together to offer an alternative path.