[RedCondor]

I don't agree with your first paragraph at all.

Capitalist countries were only able to edge out socialist economies by banking on their extant head-start and behaving socialistically (copying socialism in a light way—redistribution, worker advocacy, etc.).

As soon as they were able to claw it all back in the direction of pure capitalism all hell was set loose.

Socialism remains the way forward.

[Zigurd]

Please note that the paragraph you are disagreeing with is heavy qualified. The coercive faux-markets where the consumer is held hostage are not part of my argument.

I'm talking about markets with low barriers to entry, little or no regulatory capture, that are discretionary purchases. A government bicycle factory, for example, makes no sense and would fail. Whereas, say, postal banking, which would be pilloried as capital-C Communism in the US would work fine because banks hate their small retail customers and it shows.

However unsatisfactorily stated, my question comes down to: Does it make sense for capital allocation to remain in private hands in a possibly immanent age of AI outperforming humans in capital allocation?

[RedCondor]

Oh, as narrowly as you pose it, not at all! Whoever manages capital best should manage it. If it's a three-way competition between workers, owners, and machines… may the best decision-maker win!