Capitalism - an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
I'm confused why you would choose "Monopoly" as an example of a much larger scenario - Capitalism. As you pointed out, Monopoly is designed to destroy your competition. In capitalism, the point is to do your "one little piece" of enterprise better than your competition. In this scenario, many players survive - serving many and providing employment for many.
Further, monopolies are pretty much a thing of the past - except for government. It has reserved for itself the power of running monopolies and ponzi schemes.
To revisit an earlier erroneous statement - "capitalism will be the death of the country" - quite the opposite is true. It is "income redistribution", the government enforced theft of wealth from producers, that will be the death of the country. Of course, this is the goal of those who encourage this line of thinking. The fact is; Marxism may be popular at the White House but it is the antithesis of America.
The brand of capitalism that we practice, whatever name we apply, is not pure. We place limits and constraints on almost every aspect of what I bolded above. I believe we do that for the greater good. The extremes, in either direction, relate to the extent to which pure capitalism is constrained, or not, and by what methods.
If I, and I suspect most others, level a criticism against capitalism, I am referring to the current condition of the constraints and methods, not the basic premise of capitalism or free-market-ism as we practice it. It is a matter of degrees. In broad terms, we stir a little socialism into the purity of capitalism to make it mostly palatable.
I am always taken aback when expressing those opinions results in the leveling of charges that I am a socialist, communist or a whatever. I am saddened by the ignorance of those who think, in a largely capitalistic global economy that is currently practicing free-market-ism in overdrive IMO, that what happens in Denmark, Switzerland, or just about anywhere is not relevant. Those places and people are our competitors. Ignorance of your competition is a sure method of failure in capitalism.
Why anyone would think that aspiring to become the world's cheap labor pool by paying less than subsistence wages is a laudable goal, is another mystery.
If real life were "played" like Monopoly the losers--which would constitute most of the population--would be sleeping under decaying bridges hiding from debt collectors. That is not a result that serves the greater good and it is one that we should try to avoid. It is economic oppression. Oppressed societies are not stable. Bad things driven by desperation eventually happen.
Currently, income redistribution is what is keeping many people from sleeping under those bridges. Redistribution is not a one-way street. Many costs are socialized to a greater extent than the resulting benefits are shared. The rising tide is not lifting all the boats.
Within the span of one generation a significant portion of our population is finding economic success difficult to achieve. The causes of that are complex and numerous but one of them isn't that in the blink of a historical eye, they all became lazy no-goods, leeches and "takers."
That narrative, paid for and promoted by some extremely wealthy folks, exists only to make the wealthy more wealthy through cost avoidance measures. They are successfully playing the capitalism game to their utmost unconstrained advantage and the result is beginning to look more and more like the end of a Monopoly game.
