In systems engineering there is a concept called POSIWID, an acronym for "the purpose of a system is what it does." It means a system is never wrong; a system always does what it was designed to do. It may not be the result you wanted or expected, but it is the one it knows how to produce.
If you program a calculator app and when you ask it to calculate 2 + 2 it gives you 5, the app is not failing. It is doing what you told it to do. You failed when programming it.
I think this makes for a useful analogy: capitalism and the companies operating inside that system are always doing what they are designed to do. And they will keep doing it unless the rules change.
A small parenthesis. What do you think of fire? Yes, fire, the thing that burns. Is it good or bad?
Fire can help us achieve wonderful things: from cooking meat to obtain the nutrients we needed to evolve, or keeping us safe from predators, to moving enormous machines that do work for us, keeping streets safe and homes warm. But it can also raze entire cities and cause enormous pain. That is why fire needs to be controlled.
I hope we can all agree that safety measures are required for fire; otherwise, it will do what it knows how to do. POSIWID. And saying that fire must be controlled so we can benefit from the good it gives us while avoiding the bad is not the same as saying "let us ban fire." But in this age of extremes and polarisation, apparently it needs to be made clear.
The leaders of capitalism, especially those at the head of large corporations, have a fiduciary responsibility: they are legally and ethically obliged to maximise value for their shareholders. This usually translates into a constant search for economic growth, market expansion, and increased profits.
However, the concept of infinite growth collides with the physical, ecological, and social limits of the planet. Resources are finite, consumption capacity has a ceiling, and social balance suffers when growth becomes an obsession that ignores its consequences.
While that growth is pursued, enormous differences are created between those who have access to capital and those who do not. The gap between rich and poor is not merely maintained; it widens. This is not a minor side effect: it is a structural consequence of the system. POSIWID.
Those with more resources can invest, influence policy, and protect their interests. Those with fewer resources are trapped in cycles of precarity, with limited access to education, health, housing, and opportunities.
Another small parenthesis. Many people do not really understand what privilege means. Even friends of mine in human resources, responsible for hiring processes, have sometimes said things like: "There are no privileges here, everyone takes the same exam, it all depends on how much you study." That statement, while apparently fair, ignores something fundamental: equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of conditions.
Yes, the exam may have the same questions for everyone. But those facing it do not arrive in the same circumstances. Some have slept well, have adequate food, a quiet environment, and time to study. Others arrive after working two or three jobs, with barely three hours of sleep or none at all. Some have travelled two hours on public transport, dealing with stress and exhaustion. Others have cared for a sick relative all week, sacrificing study time.
Privilege does not always appear as money or visible power. Sometimes it is having parents who support you emotionally, access to a quiet place to study, not having to worry about rent or whether you will eat that day. This does not mean effort does not matter. It means effort does not happen in a vacuum.
We must accept an uncomfortable truth: growing inequality is not a failure of the system, but a consequence of it. The current economic model, based on accumulation, competition, and unlimited growth, tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. It is no accident that the gap between rich and poor keeps widening. It is no accident that today you cannot buy a home, have job stability, and enjoy free time as your parents and grandparents did.
Sometimes I hear parents say they will vote for a particular party because they are afraid their children will grow up in a mixed environment where customs are not respected and culture is lost. Honestly, if I were them I would be much more afraid of my children growing up in a world where they cannot pay decent rent, do not have access to mental or physical healthcare, cannot start a family without precarity, and have no time to live, only to survive.
Because let us be honest: when the wealth of a country like Spain is already distributed with 50% in the hands of 30 octogenarian gentlemen and the other 50% for the other 40 million people, in 15 years the numbers will probably be 20 oligarchs versus 50 million.
In the end, inequality is not an error in the system: it is what the system knows how to do. POSIWID.