A - The "capitalist system", much like evolution, does not have goals. Capitalism is just people trading with each other. The USA has had a similar system for hundreds of years, where the rich have gotten richer, but the poor have also gotten richer. So blaming capitalism itself is not a good answer. What has changed within capitalism to make the results from 1776 - 1990 different from 1990 - 2014? Either this is just a temporary decrease for the bottom percentiles, or there are other factors that have caused this shift (globalization, technology, government policies, personal choices, etc).

B - Do you really want to own the business you work for? If you work at a chocolate factory, and own the chocolate factory - your entire livelyhood is tied to that chocolate factory. If the company goes under, you lose your job and your savings. Wouldn't you rather own bits and pieces of many other companies, to share in their success?

But regardless, I believe your point is that it sucks not having savings / capital. Obviously true - but how do you propose people get savings / capital? Confiscate capital from the rich to give to the poor?

Capitalism is not just people trading with each other. We invented lots of legal fictions to get where we are today, and they're pretty effective. For instance, if you contribute your capital to a corporation, you'll be rewarded with an agreed upon portion of the corporations dividends. It looks like the company is rewarding you, but it's really society. We create and enforce rules like these—private property, limited liability, etc.—because they make us more prosperous. But they're artificial. They're not laws of nature. They can have flaws.

"limited liability"

I think people forget how big a deal this is - people who don't have it (e.g. old fashioned "joint and several liability" partnerships) can be in for a whole world of misery.

I remember hearing a BBC Radio 4 program a few years back on a financial disaster where a bank was both mutual and didn't have limited liability and collapsed, that was a disaster for anyone who had deposits at the bank (no matter how small).

'The "capitalist system", much like evolution, does not have goals'

That's true. Markets are just feedback mechanisms. Like a thermostat. It's politics and public discourse what decide what the temperature in the room should be.

You say that we should try to know what have changed within capitalism but I think that the answer is that nothing have changed.

The times we are living have a lot of similarity to the 20's and 30's and they are the opposite of the age from the end of the Second World War to the 70's when the pendulum swung to the other side.

It's just the old history of capital vs. labour, everyone of them in one side of the rope, the rope being the government.

I suppose that automation of mental work is what could make this time different.

What changed? I believe technology changed. Instant information exchange. Selling/buying globally with no barriers. I believe technology is changing too quickly for our system to even be able to adapt. Look at the Financial sector, for example. High-frequency trading, "insurable securities", by the time we create new laws and regulations, they've thought of 4 new ways to make money that avoid those regulations. And who is the winner from all that? Certainly not the 99.9%.

Same with the IT sector or BioMed or any other "knowledge economy" sector - we're doing great. Problem is, we need to figure out how to make the wealth really start trickling down, or we're in for rough times.

Trump and the angry pitchfork mobs are real, today, and they're pissed. The Tea Party, the Occupy movement, Brexiters, Trump supports - all feeling left behind and abandoned and betrayed and pretty angry. I sincerely hope we figure something out quick.

A. Capitalism by definition leads to concentration of wealth in hands of a few. That to me is the unwritten goal of the system. Historically wealth always consentrated in capitalistic societies.

B. Yes, if you work at a chocolate factory and at the same time own part of it you will enjoy both its success and its failure. Co-ownership and sharing both outcomes is what we don't have at most work places today.

No, I'm against this socialist/communist extreme where you take money from the rich. I am for creating mechanisms and tools that allow entire society to prosper and better itself. The way we educate people, the way we run businesses and governments is all messed up today. It simply needs to change.

> If you work at a chocolate factory, and own the chocolate factory - your entire livelyhood is tied to that chocolate factory. If the company goes under, you lose your job and your savings.

Not true. Owners risk no personal stake because of incorporation. The company can go bankrupt and their personal wealth will not be touched. Just take a look at Hanjin. The firm can't pay it's employees but their kids are still driving around in MacLarens.

> Owners risk no personal stake because of incorporation.

Owners per definition owns something, and if that something becomes worthless it means that the owner lost something. Thus owners always take personal risks, incorporation just means that they don't risk more than their ownership.