If their petty bigotted spite is such that they would rather see no benefits when they are in need than benefits to all including "the other" the problem is clearly them. It certainly isn't some fiscal calculus involving actual resource constraints and yields.

It doesn't require some secret imaginary elite - they are perfectly capable of causing backwards ruination on their own. Even if they stumble upon an obvious truth (cooperation with outgroup would benefit us) they blame the outgroup's existence for the lack of cooperation instead of their moronic bigotry.

The truth is the problem has always been them and their bigotry. Deprived of an other they will other themselves and deploy divide and conquer tactics - on themselves. Set the dark brown hair against the black or A blood type against the Bs.

A lot of capital has tied itself to economic efficiency, which has a strong tendency to dictate globalism, which also lent it political support from both classical liberals and modern liberals (note, I am not using the word 'liberal' in the broadest sense, commonly used in the USA), for whom the increase in on the ground freedom of labour and capital was mostly considered worth the cost of creating the ultra rich.

Now however, a block of the newly created ultra rich have the wealth of small nations and are asking themselves, 'What if everywhere was small nations, wouldn't it be nice if we could become sovereign and rule openly over a balkanised mass of city-states?'.

This appears at ground level in the spectacle of little old ladies who worship Thatcher, confusingly starting to parrot the talking points of late 1990's anti-capitalists. Boris Johnson saying 'fuck business' during the Brexit negotiations with the EU was no accident. And this transformation has been so fast that people paying close attention to political swings would be prone to whiplash.

Ultimately though, the real power is held by the already globalised Zaibatsus, as they have control of production, so I also suspect that the princelings-to-be may be sticking their neck out a bit far right now.

This despite being self-proclaimed conservative, nationalist, and right wing during the election.

It’s a bit scary what happens when history is lost on a new generation.

Maybe you’re thinking of a socialist planned economy?

The idea in for example a social democracy is that capitalism thoroughly embraced, but curbed through often reasonable regulation.

Edit - Love the down vote when trying to infuse some nuance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism

Let me add a personal thought:

I believe anyone claiming to carry some form of socialist agenda would agree that accountability to the people is #1.

In a totalitarian regime, as well as in a completely unregulated market economy this is no longer true for entities of power.

A reasonable balance is to be strived for, IMHO.

Today, social democracy mostly agrees with social liberals and neoliberals that nationalization should be used very rarely and sparingly - mostly wrt. inherently-monopolistic "platform"-like businesses such as railways, power grids or telco infrastructure. And even then, these "platforms" should be open for multiple private competitors to operate on, as opposed to providing monopolistic services of their own via vertical integration.

“Some social concerns” is really brushing over a lot of the things that make social democracy a form of socialism.

You’re missing for example that in a social democracy it’s common for private companies affiliated with what you could call “public service” to be in part owned by the state.

These companies most often used to be wholly state owned, but through the market liberal agenda many things have been sold out. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.

A lot of what is considered welfare is also not necessarily privatized.

I could go on, but instead I suggest diving down in the topic through the supplied wikipedia link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism

Here you’ll find social democracy, liberal socialism and democratic socialism described in detail - all part of the value spectrum of socialism.

Also, getting flagged for this opinion seems a bit over the top...