Our disagreement may be definitional - your original response was succinct and clear, but did not make an argument, merely an assertion.<p>A) I see no reason that &#x27;being made up of units which are intelligent&#x27; ought to classify a system as intelligent.<p>B) I see no way in which you can usefully talk about anything without intentional behavior as a &#x27;maximizing intelligence&#x27;.<p>You can&#x27;t call &#x27;capitalism&#x27; the &#x27;driver of our economy&#x27; for the same reason you can&#x27;t call &#x27;ecology&#x27; the &#x27;driver of natural selection&#x27; or &#x27;conflict&#x27; the &#x27;driver of our military conquests&#x27;. You are conflating a system with the units in the system, and talking about an ecology of intelligent units as if it is satisfying some behavioral utility function.<p>&#x27;Capitalism&#x27; doesn&#x27;t have a utility function, because it doesn&#x27;t have <i>decision-making capacity</i>, which is pretty much the only prerequisite for intelligent behavior. It doesn&#x27;t <i>drive</i> our economy, it <i>is</i> our economy. The actors in the system are corporations and humans (and governments, unions, and a few other united organizational structures), therefore those are the things which can exhibit intelligence.