This, this, this, this, THIS!

"Capitalism" is a polarizing term, and it doesn't help when you say -- indeed, start the article off with -- such things as:

The vast majority of the world's wealth has been produced under capitalism.

I'm considered pro-capitalist, and even I have problems with a simplistic framing like this. Among my concerns:

• Capitalism means different things to different people, especially its supporters vs. (nominal) opponents. A characteristic example might be government-business entanglement (GBE). Supporters would call that "not capitalism", while many opponents would say it's typical capitalism. Yet they agree on the substance of what policies should exist.

• Then there are complicated intermediate conflicts about what counts as government-business entanglement: Does it count as GBE when the government sets liability caps on nuclear plants, given that it's the anti-nuclear social taboo in the first place that mostly accounts for why they're uninsurable? Is respect for (strong) property rights a moral obligation, or a concession people are expected to be rewarded for? (See also Kevin Carson's "free market anti-capitalism".)

• If the world had, to date, persisted under a poor political / economic system with only a few similarities to the ideal one, you would be able to say the same thing. But that doesn't remotely support the conclusion you want: is the wealth because of its similarities to capitalism? Or to the ideal system? Or simply because of the current system in toto? Is the wealth even being tabulated correctly? Are you accounting for the destruction of informal sources of wealth that didn't perfectly align with capitaism? (like the enclosure of commons systems that actually had mechanisms to prevent "tragedy of the commons" situations)

And yes I read the rest of the article, and I don't think it recovered from this error. Also, a lot of the unwise reaction to free trade is because of (imho, legitimate) concern for the displaced workers. Since there's some kind of taboo against simply asking for assistance in re-adjustment (as it's viewed as too much of a handout), people typically push for the policy of "protecting jobs" ad infinitum.