I think our disagreements are the result of difference in our definition of capitalism.

My definition of capitalism is private ownership of the means of production and provision of services, both for profit and non-profit.

The ownership can be individual, partnership, worker owned or stock shares.

The vultures, banks, speculators, corp. raiders, etc. are a bug in the system as is excessive debt and leverage. It is the vultures that demand growth to fuel unearned income. You could make interest illegal and it would not eliminate capitalism. Calling money capital is in my mind misleading. Capital is real property, rolling stock and installed equipment.

So many companies today don't make a profit but demand high stock prices based on the hope that the stock can be sold for more money in the future based on the potential for growth. That is not capitalism that is a Ponzi scheme.

A company that produces products and services at a profit the owners find acceptable, that is capitalism. The business does not have to be growing as long as the return on investment keeps the owners from abandoning the business. The profit and growth could be zero if the owner feels the other benefits are worth their investment. There are many non-profit companies, the benefit they provide is not money. An employee owned company does not need to make a profit or grow. It still pays the owners their salary or wages and as long as it is not shrinking they get to keep their jobs.

Too often money markets, investment houses, venture capitalists, speculators and banks are considered the hallmark of capitalism, but they are not. They are blood sucking vultures. The real capitalist produce products and services.

TEK