>Just in terms of definitions, a crisis of capitalism would be the possibility of some sort of collapse, say financial, from too much QE, stock buy-backs and so-forth, or environmental, from climate change, say.

I think you can make a reasonable case that all these crises exist. Schumpeter argued that at the heart of capitalism is its ability to diverge from equilibrium and to innovate through the process of creative destruction.

And I don't think much of this is in sight, hell it even has people like Thiel worried who aren't exactly known for being anti-capitalist. You have financial crises that are only barely kept in check, you have the rise of the 'cognitive class' that Bill Gates points to in this article and that will create new widespread divide, you have ecological destruction and you have political inability to cope.

And as can also be seen in this thread, the first response is always to argue that there is no alternative. But that doesn't mean that the system isn't screwed up, it just means as the late Mark Fisher put it, that we have completely abolished our capacity to imagine alternative futures.

If enough people feel left out of the economic gains of capitalism, and they vote for Venezuela-style socialism, or just go for violent revolution, that could easily be a crisis of capitalism.

Your last paragraph is interesting. It has an element of truth, especially for other countries. In the history of the US, though, it seems to me that more benefits were given to those below when we worried about competition from Communism, and that the rise in inequality at least somewhat coincides with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Of course, the problem isn't capitalism, so much, as the glorification of monetary accumulation uber alles.

We used to encourage far stronger social capital (think single-income marriages); that's become a luxury good. And what Gates seems to be calling a "crisis" looks like a crisis in social capital.

I've always considered myself a capitalist, and 20 years ago I used to be very annoyed by what I considered insufficient appreciation for marketplace competition on the left.

But runaway inequality and the intransigent insistence of people like Gates that said inequality is not a problem has me questioning whether I need to reassess. (In my view the problem with inequality is that political power corresponds roughly to economic power, so unlimited amounts warp our political system.)

If you're losing people like me, maybe a crisis really is on the way.

But your belief can't be true because I'm both trump and Brexit the side that spent the most money (by far) was beaten. Clearly that's a syringe against the idea that political power covers directly from money.

See also: tech firms in Europe

I didn't read this article as Gates saying that inequality is not a problem. In fact, he's saying that it is a problem.

> I've always considered myself a capitalist

Curious as to why? Do you derive your livelihood from your ownership in capital? Or do you have to work, but value private property, markets and liberal economics?

I ask, because when I think of a capitalist, I think of someone whose wealth and power are derived from significant ownership in companies and assets, real or financial.

There are plenty of ideologies that value market economics from the very left to the very right. Examples include market socialism on the left and American libertarianism on the right.

Capital is a synonym for wealth and a synonym for property.

Being against capital is a fairly extreme position that has been tried and has a much worse track record.

What people think of when they say capitalism these days is more like kleptocracy or corporationism.