No, capitalism is not about adaptibility. For one thing, it is not synonymous with a market economy. Markets need money to circulate, while people see it as the signal to extract and store. Meaning that ever more has to be added and ever more metastatic methods of storing what has been extracted.
For one thing, shouldn't it be evident to all, that the capital markets could not function, without governments siphoning up trillions in surplus money? It is truly the elephant in the room. The secret sauce of capitalism is that public debt backs private wealth.
Money is not a commodity to be mined and manufactured, but a contract, where the asset is backed by a debt. Necessitating equivalent amounts of debt to back the assets presumably being stored.
Another method is squeezing the money flowing through the general economy, requiring it to run on debt and drawing the saved money back into circulation. Which creates a centripetal effect, as positive feedback draws the asset to the center and negative feedback pushes the debt to the edges of society. The Ancients used debt jubilees to reset this process, but several centuries of colonialism and industrialization have pushed the boundaries out pretty far. Though the future the system has borrowed against, appears to have arrived.
The functionality of money is in its fungibility. We own it like we own the section of road we are using, or the air and water flowing through our bodies.
Econ 101 says money is both medium of exchange and store of value, though a medium is dynamic, while a store is static. Blood is a medium, fat is a store. Roads are a medium, parking lots are a store.
There simply isn't the investment potential to individually save what we feel we need, but we do save for many of the same reasons, so eventually we will have to reinvent the idea of the public commons, as a store of public wealth. Storing value in society will mean also storing it in the environment supporting society. Rather than destroying both to store digits in an account.
Which is not socialism, as there is the need for both public and private property, much as a house has family and personal spaces.
Government was private once, but as monarchs became increasingly disconnected from the societies they served as the executive and regulatory function, public alternatives had to be developed.
Banking, as the economic circulation mechanism, has been having its own, "let them eat cake" moment.
Similarly the alternative appears to be some sort of public banking function.
Which is not to say it should be a direct function of government. Like the nervous system and the circulation system, they serve very different purposes to the entire body. As we experience money as quantified hope and politicians live and die on the hope they inspire, printing excess money is a sure sign of decay.
It is a public utility and needs to be treated as such.
A glorified voucher system, not a religion.
