OK, that's fair to a point, I'm just saying taking away wealth from the people that built it in the first place and putting it under the control of people who have not demonstrated those skills (whatever skills they do have) isn't necessarily a good idea.
As long as the capital is being employed productively and managed by the most competent people to do so, we all benefit. I'm carefully trying to avoid a 'tax bad, government bad' position and the phrasing you pointed out quite reasonably might have given that impression.
This sentence is so bizarre not even the opposite is correct. First off, 'effective leaders and managers' isn't an antonym to 'bureaucrat'. There are effective leaders and managers in bureaucracies. In fact that's kind of what bureaucracy means, effective and rational management of resources.
Furthermore, bureaucracies exist both in the private sector and public sector. Wealthy billionaires employ hundreds (if not more) of individuals doing nothing but managing their wealth in highly bureaucratic fashion. They don't run around and employ their billions in some sort of crazy act of pizza and dorm-room fuelled creative destruction, the deploy countless of institutions and non-profits and accountants and lawyers, the gates foundation looks more like the tax office or a defense department than a garage workshop.
>, or give people with a proven track record more resources to devote to new enterprises
No, the point of capitalism is to allocate capital to people who don't have any proven track record. Because that's the people who actually make new things. If you only want to distribute money to people with track records then a bureaucracy is the right address, because correctly licensing, testing, rewarding, and promoting people based on their track record is the very essence of the ideal Weberian bureaucracy. Keeping track of who does a good job is 90% of what bureaucracies are all about.