I don't remember saying anything like that about capitalism having no observable benefits. I've always said capitalism's a mixed bag. The benefits of technological innovation are obvious, although whether the system as a whole will be beneficial in the long run is an open question (mainly because of ecological concerns).

Capitalism is intertwined with modernity (with the revolutions of science and liberalism). So whatever modernity exacerbates, capitalism in some form is there driving the process. Bureaucratic communism is modern, too, but it's an aberration compared to the impact of capitalism. So take any big modern problem, and you'll see that capitalism is part of it. Granted, capitalism is likely supporting the benefits of modernity too. So the question is whether modernity as a whole is overall good or bad. As I say, it's an open question, given especially the ecological problem, but also the infantilizing effects of consumerism, the coming automation of labour, the populist blowback, and so on.

I don't have to say that the robber barons were the only models of modern subcriminal psychopathy that economists drew on in their propaganda for capitalism. The East India Company provided the same model, to say the least (first link below). So that's maybe the hundredth uncharitable strawman I've seen from you.

Instead of conflating economics with right-wing politics, you'd maintain that economics exists in an Ivory Tower, isolated from society and having no indirect impact on public opinion? Yet economists work directly for banks, think tanks, big companies, and the government as analysts and consultants. Yeah, the conflation seems warranted by those facts on the ground.

I wouldn't take the Nobel Prizes for economists as signs of anything except for the farce that economics is thereby being treated as a hard science like physics, chemistry, and physiology. That's a joke, but you proudly present that record as if it tells us that economists have seen the light. If economics has reformed itself, why are economists still receiving Nobel Prizes as though economics belonged in the same category as physics?

The Nobel Prize for economics was backed by Sweden's central bank. And among the many critics of that prize is 'the Swedish human rights lawyer Peter Nobel, a great-grandnephew of Ludvig Nobel. Nobel accuses the awarding institution of misusing his family's name, and states that no member of the Nobel family has ever had the intention of establishing a prize in economics. He explained that "Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being", saying that "There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize", and that the association with the Nobel prizes is "a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation".'

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/DOnqb

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/economists.htm#tab-2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences#Controversies_and_criticisms