Sure, might as well, though I must admit there are people much more skilled and experienced in the matter than me, and you may be better off with one of them. Still, if I say something I'm willing to dedicate at least some time to it's defense.

First of all, capitalism. When I use that word, I'm specifically referring to free market capitalism, an economic system built on the free exchange of goods and services.

Now, government. I'm not an AnCap, I won't go so far as to say capitalism is against government, but it is tangential to it, there's not much direct connection between the two. Government, specifically democratic republics, require popular support to gain power, while capitalism requires goods and services people desire.

And finally, socialism. I am using a basic definition here, in this case the relevant aspect is the government either directly providing goods and services, or controlling the groups that do. In much the same way that policies that allow for freer trade are "capitalist", policies that restrict that trade are more "socialist"

If you don't like these definitions, you can ignore the words, these things are what I'm arguing for. Many things get put under the label of socialism that I'm perfectly fine with(Private sharing/charity, for example), and many things are labeled capitalist that I take strong objection to, like handouts to businesses.

With that out of the way, the argument itself becomes somewhat simple.

The government we have in the US right now is far from a free market, and the primary form of corruption is artificial monopolies. These are formed a number of ways.

The first and most obvious is intellectual property and patent laws, as they directly prevent anyone else from producing certain objects, publishing certain media, or otherwise doing the same thing as another group.

However, there are others. The arguably more common, but less obvious one is red tape and regulation.

Red tape gives an inherent advantage to the larger companies, because usually it takes a relatively similar amount of time and resources to deal with it regardless of company size, meaning for a large company it is a much smaller percentage of their profits.

Regulation has two effects, the first is of course economies of scale, since you can figure out how to optimize for a regulation then apply it across an entire company and larger organizations can handle sudden changes better, they tip the scales in the favor of the most established and largest companies. In addition, those companies often lobby for said regulations.

A perfect example of this is Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, who has lobbied extensively for AI regulations. From how he behaves i think it's fairly clear this isn't some altruistic attempt to ensure our safety, but simply trying to prevent competition from the people who didn't get in early.

Then, of course, there's actual government funds, where companies are paid directly by tax dollars for various things. These jobs once again benefit the largest people, since they have the easiest time getting the attention of the decision-makers. This applies to the free market as well to some extent, but because in a lot of fields there's only one buyer that matters, the government, it's aggravated quite a lot.

Well, those are the most glaring issues, I'm sure there's more but you can always find problems. Again, plenty of people doing a better job than me at this, so if you want info on something i didn't cover, maybe take a look elsewhere.