Hmm, you make some good points. I accept that I may have not contributed to the conversation as much as I would like (though "contribution" wasn't really my intention, but your point stands).

However, I will say that the latter part of your post is the kind of comment that I was expecting, for better or worse.

Yes but you see this is my point entirely. Instead of engaging with the discussion you have this aloof cynicism. I didn't even say anything particularly in support of capitalism, yet you dismissed by point as "what you expected." How do you persuade others to see an alternative perspective if you don't first validate their opinions?

For example, I'm willing to engage in dialectics about the advantages and disadvantages of a capitalist system (for example, see my other comment about this article), but you didn't really say anything other than "you make some good points, but this is what I expected."

Take a position. You don't diminish an echo chamber just by observing that it exists, you have to engage with it and attempt to improve the discussion. I called out my potential bias and took a stance. You've not really done either here, which ultimately diminishes the impact of calling out the difficulty in the first place. What was the point?

I see no point in an engagement where two people who are both benefiting from capitalism discuss its merits. My greater point could be that it is our benefiting from this capitalism that we have such privilege to be wasting time on such discussions to begin with. What would be gained from such a conversation, anyway? Even if one of us manages to convince us that capitalism isn't the way to go, or make us think less of it, it's not like we're going to significantly change our lifestyle as a result.

There's a great saying actually that's relevant, but for the life of me I can't remember.

It is specifically those who are benefiting from capitalism who need to be convinced that it is not great, since they are the ones who are propping it up.