We see. I see myself as a "capitalist" just in the sense that I think that capitalism is something natural, thus, inherently good, although commonly misused by our sinful nature. I'm certainly a long distance from being a capitalist in the being rich sense of the word.
Where I disagree with most of the anti-capitalists is with equating all profit, or at least all large capital profit with usury. They are not the same.
One of the "mindboggling" thing about modern capitalism is that you can make money with renting money, and that looks an awful lot like making money with doing nothing. But it's hard work and demand some very rare and high set of skills to identify and manage investments. While most of us have trouble assessing the feasibility of one single investment, there are some people who can do that with hundreds, thousands of them at the same time, all that aided by hundreds of years of institutional experience in bankig and finance and modern technology. Sometimes, when a bank refuses a loan because it considers the investment too risky, what it is really doing is saving the assets of that person or institution, which, if invested in a bad business, would lead to a total bankrupcy.
The whole banking imbroglio of the last years has more to do with governmental incentives to bad investments and subsequent bail outs to those who made such bad investments than with the concept of banking itself.
I agree that "as is" is not the ideal situation. But I can't see how maligning banking can help. We have to think what the healthy role of banking is in supporting the creation of wealth and then proceed to adjust laws and regulations to that.
Usury, on the other hand, is basically extorsion on someone in need.
Exactly! Why don't capitalists see this?