I suggest you read up on the history of capitalism, specifically the Inclosure Act [1]. The only difference between feudalism and capitalism is who is doing the rent-seeking.
We extend all of this to intellectual property too. It's rent-seeking all the way down [2]. Have you seen any of the documentaries (or the movie) about how Tetris came to be? Some enthusiasts in the USSR made it. The contribution of capitalism was just whole levels of sublicensing and distribution agreements.
Or maybe you think capitalism is responsible for innovation? Take drug research. Almost all novel compounds come of the education sector using government funding. The "innovation" here is for-profit companies marking that up 8000% and then lobbying for laws that forbid the government from negotiating prices or anyone from importing the same thing from overseas for 1% of the price. That's c apitalism.
Maybe you believe capitalism is about "free markets". First off, there's no such thing. Second, markets exist in every economic system and existed thousands of years before capitalism did.
I agree with 95% of what you said. The distinction between capitalism and free markets is very important - and most people conflate these two concepts which leads them to be manipulated.
The only thing I do not agree with you is a minor quibble - most of the communist economic systems actively destroyed free markets. The only exception may be Communist China.
> Supply constraint of housing by rent-seekers who have managed regulatory capture is absolutely not capitalism working as intended.
Depends on whose intentions you mean. People who believe in free markets? Then not as intended. People who stand to benefit from rent seeking? Then as intended.
I would argue the second group are far more politically influential.
Supply constraint of housing by rent-seekers who have managed regulatory capture is absolutely not capitalism working as intended.