No, that's actually not a subjective observation, but a statement of fact... Deficiencies of capitalism are well known in economics, just like deficiencies of democracy are known in politics. This isn't to say that there are superior alternatives, but one musty be aware of the imperfections. It's certainly the best and the healthiest model we have experienced so far. However, yet again, that doesn't mean that it's perfect and it's those imperfections that need to be addressed somehow.
But a bunch of guys trying to micromanage a huge, complex system and really messing it up is somehow perfect...
Who says micromanage? Everything in life is good in moderation... Overregulated, micromanaged capitalism doesn't work, but neither does fully unfettered, unregulated capitalism. The trick, as usual, is to find just the right mix.
That is not the case and there's an abundance of research to demonstrate that. I can cite you some, if you like.
Two main categories: 1) Provision of public goods, aka issues that have to do with negative externalities 2) Monopoly issues I dig up a few. Pls bear w/me.
What do you mean by negative externalities? I don't work for a multi-billion dollar hedge fund, my friend. Can you dumb it down for me, a bit? If you mean, provision of public services (funded via taxes), we seem to do okay now? And then (post-1930's)? Reasonable tax rates are certainly compatible with a capitalist system? The Founders funded via tariffs and excise? These aren't deal-breakers, imo. Without excessive regulation (and regulators to buy off), what's wrong with monopolies if they provide a good or service well below that of other free market competitors? That's a boon to the general economy. Not a blight, ya? Sure thing. No rush.