> I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it seems fantastic, but there are always consequences and the reason we have capitalism is because so far it's proven itself as the best method of improving the wealth of everyone
That's not the reason we have capitalism, since we, generally, don't -- the places that had the system for which the label "capitalism" was created have all since adopted a substantial portion of the redistributive program of some of that systems most strident opponents (such as Marx and Engels) to create the modern dominant "mixed economy", for the precise reason that capitalism was an incredibly bad system and improving conditions for anyone but a very narrow class.
And when we do take steps back toward capitalism, we see that what aggregate gains there are get more narrowly concentrated, and the system gets worse at "improving the wealth of everyone".
That's not the reason we have capitalism, since we, generally, don't -- the places that had the system for which the label "capitalism" was created have all since adopted a substantial portion of the redistributive program of some of that systems most strident opponents (such as Marx and Engels) to create the modern dominant "mixed economy", for the precise reason that capitalism was an incredibly bad system and improving conditions for anyone but a very narrow class.
And when we do take steps back toward capitalism, we see that what aggregate gains there are get more narrowly concentrated, and the system gets worse at "improving the wealth of everyone".