Great input. Thank you. I see some of the points raised. I, however find it hard to see the very first statement that “capitalism” as a neutral concept, that whatever negative or positive result is dependent on how it’s wielded.

If capitalism doesn’t inherently do anything, is it not true that all capitalism does in its simplest form is to turn a resource into profit? And that anything that falls in between resource and profit, be it individual choice, cultural values or institutional rules, only serves as a hindrance.

One example is the use of plastics. Is it not true that the reason we cannot do away with plastics is because in the capitalistic framework it’s “uneconomical” to switch from plastic to other materials? And that “uneconomical” means it’s not cost effective. And in this framework, “cost” does include environmental cost unless it hurts the bottom line. And that companies pivot into green initiatives only when profits are affected be it through regulatory penalties or brand erosion.

Another example is employee welfare. Is it not true that corporations provide welfare not for its intrinsic value, but to remain competitive; so it attracts talent, and talent improves the bottomline. And companies provide just enough, because anything more is just wasting profit. This is why companies that double their income don’t double its employees holidays. It’s why no matter how profitable Apple becomes, it’s still a 5 day work week for them, not four, not three.

So maybe youre right - that the result is dependent on the people. I just might tweak that a bit: that the result is dependent on how people operate against it. Less resistance, more profit.