No it doesn't. Having the majority of wealth concentrated in a few people who have way more than they'll ever need, many of that wealth being unearned (eg. rent seeking, inheritences), does not maximize total utility.
That's arguably a bit misleading, since greater equality gives greater utility, for a fixed-size pie.
It's pretty well established that utility is approximately proportional to the log of monetary value. So in your example of what capitalism prefers, total utility would be significantly higher if the $1500 were distributed equally over the 11 people.
$100 in capital held by each of 100,000 people, where chances are at least one will utilize the capital to invest in an innovative new idea or trade in a marketplace, or $10,000,000 held by 1 person, where chances are that person is an heir who plays videogames all day
Technology, i.e. 'increased economic efficiency' is the cause. It leads to a world where small players either become popular quickly or lose. And 99% of small players fall into the latter category.
People don't see this. They complain about inequality while they sport their iPhone apparently unconcerned that they are contributing to inequality by buying a popular product from a company that is sitting on more cash than some nations. But will they buy a phone from a small hardware startup, allowing a diverse phone market to thrive, employing an order of magnitude more people? Nope. And yet they complain about inequality, totally ignorant of its systemic nature and their part in it.
Capitalism trends towards greatest total utility (in the economics sense).
Capitalism would prefer 10 people with $50 and one person with $1000 over 11 people with $10.
We can't be surprised when that happens.