Which system is better?

You say "Modern capitalism" as if there was a different capitalism before it. The system is the same (perhaps more optimized from longer innovation); the culture and the players are different.

I think he's saying that the modern economic shell game that is going on is actively damaging the economic welfare of a large body of people. From my perspective the "modern" part of it has become more extractive than generative. A lot of "innovation" has been to cut as many corners as possible while isolating wealth into fewer and fewer groups.

"Modern capitalism" might be better called "managerial capitalism". It is different from entrepreneurial capitalism, which preceded it.

Entrepreneurial capitalism was a constellation of small private enterprises, often family-owned. Managerial capitalism is characterized by the dominance of firms publicly traded on capital markets, and managed by professional managers who are often distinct from the shareholders.

Entrepreneurial capitalism, I believe, better aligns incentives by combining the shareholder and manager role. It also reduces dependence on capital markets, which can become a single point of failure during a financial panic. Lastly entrepreneurial capitalism makes coordination between competitors less likely, whereas such coordination is embraced by the mergers and acquisitions arms of banks in a mangerial capitalist system quite openly.

The only advantage of managerial capitalism is scale. Pooling capital in public markets permits massive economies of scale and their efficiencies.

There was capitalism when communism was still a force. That capitalism had to offer something better to workers to keep them from thinking "Maybe communism is better?": https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cuny/cp/2020/00000052...

Nowadays, well, you got your Bezos and you got your Uber...

I believe capitalism can work well on a micro-scale when the products are simple enough that consumers can exert perceivable pressure on producers. Make a better hammer? I'll buy a better hammer.

Where modern capitalism falls down is complexity. There's 3 (non-niche) desktop operating systems, for example, and way more than 3 attributes that consumers care about in a computer. Or cars, or TVs, or airplanes, or anything else that costs more than $20. There's simply not enough levers by which consumers can send any meaningful signal through the market to producers. This breaks the Invisible Hand.

It’s the only system that relies on the willingness of two parties to exchange something of value in a way that it mutually beneficial. Every other system involves the use of force, either explicit or implicit to compel people to act in ways that are contrary to their own interests. Because if it were in their best interest, force wouldn’t be necessary. Capitalism requires a willing buyer and a willing seller. It’s the most free system there is. Inefficiencies obviously can create problems, but in those problems, there are yet infinite possibilities.

I'm not willing to go hungry or be homeless. What if my interest is art or playing video games all day, but then I'd be hungry and homeless. So I'm forced to work.

You're forced to work in other systems, too. I don't see your point. Unless you want UBI to be high enough that you needn't work?