Actually, I have considered your interests, by taking the time to respond in the first place. Lots of writers here ignore their readers' comments.

Anyway, the question I raise in some of my articles on economics is whether Adam Smith's invisible hand argument would work if we assume that the market's participants are only self-interested rather than selfish. Again, that distinction is slippery since the two concepts overlap.

Sure, a fair exchange or a trade of goods could be rational and even beneficial and thus moral. But things aren't so neutral and clear-cut in capitalism. We often look to exploit people's weaknesses, which makes the marketplace a competition and more like a jungle than a fair racetrack. Self-interest that theoretically allows for mutually beneficial exchanges turns into cutthroat competitions.

A libertarian can insist that in theory capitalism can be perfectly moral. But a communist could say the same about communism. In practice and in the real world, these economic systems are susceptible to forms of corruption. They have downsides that shouldn't be dismissed with overheated, grandiose rhetoric.