I think we need to agree on a definition of “capitalism” before we can fix it. I would define capitalism as an economic system in which the creation of capital, the allocation of capital, and the deployment of capital are each performed by logically distinct (albeit occasionally physically identical) free, private actors.

To put some meat on that bones, imagine that Pablo Picasso scribbles a scribble and sells it for a ton, creating capital. Pablo does not need that money to create more scribbles, so he invests it. But Pablo does not know where to invest it, because Pablo is a painter, not a stock-picker. So Pablo hires Warren Buffett to allocate his capital. Now, Warren is a great evaluator of businesses, but the only business he actually knows how to operate is one that evaluates businesses. So Warren allocates some of Pablo’s capital to entrepreneurs who deploy capital to create goods and services for people to buy. If the entrepreneur succeeds, the entrepreneur acquires capital, which puts him in the same position as Pablo, which means that he, too, must hire Warren. That’s why managing money pays so well!

So, we have risk-takers, bankers, and entrepreneurs. Every entrepreneur who reinvests capital in his business is also acting as his own risk-taker and banker, which is why I say the logically distinct players may be one person. Some venture capitalists fund businesses and help to run them, combining banking and entrepreneurship and, sometimes, their own capital. But the nature of the system is that the three elements are separate functions.

Specialization is a good thing, and capitalism is simply specialization in the creation of goods and services. With that understanding, it’s fair to ask what could go wrong. And one thing that can go wrong is that the competitive process of creating goods and services disqualifies people from consuming goods and services. At the heart of all the ills of capitalism is the tragedy of the commons: a competitor must destroy its market in order to win its market. Thus, the company that pays least charges the least and gets the most customers, a group that does not include its underpaid employees. What’s wrong with that picture?

Virtually all good regulation forbids competition in a way that creates competitors from destroying their own markets. But nothing happens in a vacuum. If industry can only crank out 100 widgets per year, only enough money needs to be earned to buy 100 widgets per year. There is no economic benefit to improving the incomes of workers if there aren’t any widgets for them to buy. But things change, and the effort to lower the average cost of production through technology may also lower the marginal cost, changing the calculus (literally) for optimizing the profits of production. As marginal costs fall, rising wages create profits, so long as everyone raises their wages.

The UBI, if it is understood as a dividend and not a safety net, bypasses the wage issue and gives everyone more money to buy more things. It makes eminent sense if there is excess capacity in the economy, including capacity that could be brought on line by deploying excess capital. This is not a given; no amount of capital will increase the supply of unicorns. But if the only missing ingredient is capital, demand-side stimulus is supply-side stimulus.

None of this requires the remaking of capitalism, because the essence of capitalism — decoupling the risk, allocation and deployment of capital — has no necessary social attributes. Competition can be regulated to eliminate inhumane cost-cutting, and money can be printed to create demand for unused capacity. Everything else should be able to take care of itself.