The theoretical support for why capitalism is a good system, assumes people aren't stupid and only make trades and decisions that are rational and good for them though.

Arguing that you're going to take advantage of the weak, the old, the distracted, the powerless and the terrified may be a refreshingly open take on capitalism, but it's not what it's sold on.

> Arguing that you're going to take advantage of the weak, the old, the distracted, the powerless and the terrified may be a refreshingly open take on capitalism, but it's not what it's sold on.

The fact that your strength, youth, concentration and wit will give you an advantage over others is exactly why capitalism is fair and awesome.

Talk like that is how communist revolutions are triggered.

"Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and skill"

-- ancient proverb, attribution uncertain

Well aren't you just full of yourself.

Myself? Not particularly, no. I am not particularly young, regularly suffer from depression and don't have a lot of ambition anyway.

I would be, personally, far better off with socialist system. Which doesn't change the fact that it is based on immoral grounds which repulse me.

Does that mean that socialism (a necessarily coercive human-elaborated system) assumes people are stupid and make trades and decisions that are irrational and bad for them? Perhaps it does in denial of the evidence from the history of the 20th century.

People don't have to be sold on capitalism. It comes naturally because it's not a scheme devised by some right-wing Marx though people have elaborated on it. People trade with each other because it comes naturally as it does to every single living entity on the planet which trades with its neighbours and its environment. Wise capitalists see that it's in all our interests to take compassionate regard for the weak, old, distracted etc,. given that that's the fate (in some measure) for all of us ultimately. That's trading.

It's completely baffling to me that you could be so… short-sighted, I guess?

Capitalism revolves around the concept of private ownership, which in itself requires the rule of law to be effective – definitionally a "coercive human-elaborated system". Moreover, in order to be effective, capitalism requires efficient, well-informed, competitive, free markets. We can directly observe that competition requires state intervention too. Your mooted "wise capitalist" will be forced out of the market by the "disaster capitalist" who isn't interested in compassion for the weak, because their fate isn't tied to each other.

In reality, any of these arguments about Socialism or Capitalism or Mercantilism or Communism or Liberalism or any other purist capitalised word are bunkum. There is not a simplistic answer to the question of "how do we structure a global economy such that people are fairly rewarded for their contributions to the human condition while ensuring that people are not taken advantage of or mistreated because of systemic power or wealth imbalances". There is almost always a mix of principle and practicality required. Competing interests abound. Successful economies, by most metrics, embrace a mixture of free trade with state regulation, acknowledging that while the free market is an astonishing engine for growth and prosperity it can easily destroy itself if unchecked.