As side from definition, I think of capitalism as an algorithm with no inherent moral obligation. It's neither good or evil. Thus it's critical to apply capital

As side from definition, I think of capitalism as an algorithm with no inherent moral obligation. It's neither good or evil. Thus it's critical to apply capitalism only where it fits. When a business's profit is proportional to the well being of the mass, then capitalism is great. Problem arise when profit is proportional the degradation of the public health, the number of wars being waged, and the amount of people being imprisoned. Then of course we have to "regulate" it. Some may say capitalism is "in-efficient" when it's regulated. I completely agree, in the sense that any algorithm is in-efficient when there is more over heard. It may be easier to think of the task of improving the state of the world as a global optimization problem in computation. Experienced computer scientists will tell you that the hardest part of an optimization problem is defining exactly what is to be optimized - Think fitness measure in a genetic algorithm. This make sense. We can make an algorithm as efficient as possible, but if we are optimizing the wrong thing then all the work are pointless. As complex as the world is, I can't bring myself to believe that profit alone is enough as the fitness measure. That's why people have proposed adding other measures such as carbon emission credit to be traded in a capitalistic algorithm. (Maybe we should even add more measures such as health and education credit.) Some may call this "regulating" capitalism. I personally think it's just redefining the fitness function, which is a very sensible thing to do in terms of computation.