Yes, this is an interesting effect of capitalism: locally significant but globally quite irrelevant issues gets more resources allocated to them than globally s

Yes, this is an interesting effect of capitalism: locally significant but globally quite irrelevant issues gets more resources allocated to them than globally significant but not locally sensible investments. That's of course bad. The immediate alternative: government allocates funds to locally insignificant and because of prestige, buy-in and general politics, eventually globally worthless investments, is also not very attractive. Actually, one may see Bill Gates as an example of why capitalism is advantageous. Being allowed to amass a significant portion of wealth, he can now choose to spend it on efforts he considers good. As long as his interest is to use his money for purposes he considers the greater good, the money will certainly have a greater effect than government's spending of the same resources would. Think what you will of the Malaria problem. But I think that giving larger amounts of resources to certain individuals (just kings) is one of the most efficient ways of allocating resources. Now, the main problem with modern capitalism is this: Why do so few just kings arise from the very wealthy? Most very rich seem incapable of creating or living by any sentiment or value-system that goes beyond their own self-indulgence. Why is that? And how to make a system where the people that rise create value and values?