I disagree with much of what was written, but I find it hard to address what seems, to me, more like a long analogy than anything else.<p>&quot;Capitalism&quot; doesn&#x27;t maximize &quot;capital&quot;, in any sense. The word &quot;capital&quot; generally refers either: to some asset that might be used in production, such as a piece of machinery; or structures that might render services over a time, like buildings; or to some sum which might be used in buying either of these, through financial services.<p>Now, &quot;capital&quot; wouldn&#x27;t be maximized by &quot;capitalist&quot; firms. Why should they? Firms produce additional capital units so long as they can be sold above production cost, but they won&#x27;t produce indefinitely. They are concerned with their profits, not with the amount of product. They aren&#x27;t even concerned with the products&#x27; value, so long as it is above production costs. Hence, there&#x27;s no incentive to inflate the capital good prices, which would be necessary to maximize the amount of money &quot;capital&quot;.<p>Also, an it really be said that capitalism is an adaptive intelligence system? That, I&#x27;m not knowledgeable enough to tell. On the other hand, human interaction is unstructured enough that it seems unlikely that there&#x27;s any goal to such supposed intelligence, or that it has capital-maximization as it&#x27;s goal. Rather, I see a collection of different goals, each corresponding to different agents, and some of which might even be contradictory. The noisy neighbor, the ambitious monopolist, or the NIMBY all seek to maximize their private benefit, but often beyond social benefits. Hence I find it hard, whenever markets fail through the presence of either externalities, imperfect competition, or adverse incentives, that it ought nonetheless be the work of some powerful demiurge.<p>Yet, in so far as it puts into words an anxiety that so many feel, I can&#x27;t say much else beyond that I don&#x27;t believe it. The author certainly proceeds by analogy when he likens &quot;capitalism&quot; to an artificial intelligence whose goals themselves mean nothing to humanity at large; and mentions alienating &quot;monuments&quot; to capital, as if to liken it to a 20th century pharaoh, or to cruel tyrant. But since so many feel this is really the case, I have nothing else to say (other than that it&#x27;s a very vivid picture). I disagree, for instance, that the majority of goods are worthless, as they ought to have some value in order to be sold. Even Marx reckoned this much, and thinking otherwise seems like relying too much in the stupidity of others (which should never be trivially admitted). That would be the case if capital were built beyond all possible utility (say, like a bridge between London and NY). And I don&#x27;t think it is necessary to make analogies to speak of wealth and income distribution issues, which are real problems in themselves, and which the majority of people are already acquainted with. Rather, I think that such analogies make problems much larger than they ought to be, by giving some monstrous character. Would be it be easier to tackle inequality by conceiving it as a result of an incredibly power artificial intelligence? I don&#x27;t think so (even if the system is rotten, we&#x27;d be waiting on a constructive proof of one that isn&#x27;t).