When you have a private central bank that will lend other banks as much fiat as the they care to print using rehypothecated assets to do it, but smaller private investors play by different rules completely - explain to me how that is capitalistic?
Again, not arguing whether pure capitalism is good or bad - just your definition. I am unsure what it is - but its not a free market.
You assume this is new? The 1980’s put this trend into overdrive.
In your defense the US has never been a pure capitalist society and if it were it would have failed long ago.
The private central bank is not supposed to be controlled by the government making it a word I’m not allowed to say here if it entangles to the government.
When a corporate entity influences government that isn’t communist and is considered the end game of unlimited capitalism.
When a private entity grows to a monopoly of a field (be it money supply/banking, real estate, goods) that is the end game of a capitalist system ready to fail .
Capitalism always concentrates power into a single entity (always) and your example is why it always fails eventually unless people in the system want to do the right thing and step back from the precipice placing limits on the entities.
Unless you have a strong NOT capitalist indifferent government overseeing a capitalist system you are likely to see nepotism and cronyism.
And this isn’t our first brush with Cronyism, it had an entire era back in a previous century before we had a fed.
Remember the company town era?
Remember “the boss “ era?
Remember the gilded era?
All excluded small investors , got entangled with the government and controlled small businesses and involved dirty tricks.
None would be communist/socialist either though .
People need to care about government, get educated and not elect bums so you get motivated people who know what they are doing and want to make positive changes in the world.
We the people have not been doing our collective jobs.