"Capitalism without competition isn't capitalism; it's exploitation. Without healthy competition, big players can … charge whatever they want and treat you however they want." President Biden's cogent statement about the benefits of competition would make Adam Smith smile in his grave. What could be more obvious? When one or all of the major players in an industry get to set prices while avoiding the threat of a competitor offering a better deal, the consumer suffers.

Maybe it's time we start applying more of this same thinking to governments themselves. After all, this is the administration that celebrated a multi-country agreement to establish and maintain a minimum level of corporate income taxes. The move promises to undermine the ability of the people to hold policymakers accountable.

With his comment, President Biden was addressing the run-up in meat prices and how the structure of the meat processing industry – where poultry, swine and beef make their way into the food supply chain – seemed to disadvantage consumers as well as farmers and growers. There is no doubt about what has happened to meat prices. Anyone looking at price data will see an amazing spike. In November, the Bureau of Labor Statistics index for meat, poultry, eggs and fish was up 12.8% from a year ago. And anyone who does the family grocery shopping, as I do, will bear witness to the fact that budgets are being strained by higher grocery prices.

But evidence of higher prices is not proof that something is awry with meat producers. There are lots of moving parts in the price puzzle – the obvious one being rising inflation throughout the economy, driven in part by Biden's infusions of cash into the economy. The structure of the industry is just one piece to this puzzle.

In any case, Mr. Biden has made a far-reaching decision that may or may not make a difference. He has announced that the federal government (read: taxpayers like you and I) will step in and invest billions in meat processing plants. Federal regulators will beef up (pardon the pun) their review and enforcement of existing programs that claim to be beneficial to consumer interests.

All of this in a supposed effort to strengthen the working of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" – the competitive market process by which capitalism works to improve human wellbeing, not to exploit the human population. (This, I know, is a contentious idea in some circles, but those interested in the proof can compare the trajectory of living standards – including and especially among the poor – in capitalist and non-capitalist countries going back to Smith's day.)

But wait a minute. Taking the president's words and action at face value, if a greater degree of competition is what we need in the meat market, then what about corporate taxes?

Put more specifically, should national governments collude and raise taxes in concert with one another, rather than having to respond to competitive forces that allow businesses and individuals to locate in the tax system that best suits them?

Whether we choose to think of such things as a market, that's exactly what it is. Should consumers of government services be offered the assurance that the prices they pay (via taxes) are fair? That their governments are relentlessly searching for the most efficient ways to serve the public, just as meat producers should do? Up until now, our ability to leave one tax jurisdiction for another has, through competitive pressure, provided some measure of this assurance. But what if every governing body sets the same tax rate?

This is no rhetorical exercise. Somehow Mr. Biden's pronouncement of what is true for consumers of meat products doesn't apply to public-sector producers.

Instead of calling for more competition among governments, Biden's administration has led the effort to cartelize leading world governments and to coordinate tax (price) increases in the name of making us all better off. But as the president has noted, the absence of competition leads to exploitation.

Sorry, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Yes, competition is beneficial in all markets, including the meat products and, yes, government services.

Bruce Yandle is a distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, dean emeritus of the Clemson College of Business and Behavioral Sciences, and a former executive director of the Federal Trade Commission.