> By the way, if you insist that capitalist economies are distributed, how would you explain the extreme concentration of capital in a few hands? The global mar

> By the way, if you insist that capitalist economies are distributed, how would you explain the extreme concentration of capital in a few hands? The global markets are ultimately controlled by a handful of people. You can't equate current-day "capitalism" with "free market capitalism". We live under state-regulated, corporatist economy, which is designed to concentrate power in the hands of big corporations that are associated with the state. That said, even in a "free market capitalist" system you'd expect concentration of wealth, for the reason that any competitive system presents an exponential distribution of performance in the outcomes. What you wouldn't expect, however, is that the concentration of wealth would be so skewed as we have in a corporatist economy. On the top of that, inequality on itself is not a problem. I'd argue it's a necessity if you want to be able to create wealth, as it's a side-effect of the incentives associated with competition (as stated above). In other words, inequality is not so much of an issue if the whole of the economy is producing more wealth, which in one way or another becomes distributed as it increases productivity. In the end, the real matter is poverty -- but from all solutions we can think on how to solve that problem, centralization and bureaucracy (here meaning: a state) seem to be the worst of all. In my personal opinion, localism (meaning: acting in the smaller community scale, as opposed to central control) and voluntaryism (meaning: the ethics of voluntary associations, as opposed to coercion) are the keys to set us up to help each other and eradicate poverty.