I really do think I get where you're coming from and perhaps I even agree relative to how much better things theoretically could be. But it always gives me pause when people use phrases like the above which seem to indicate an unwillingness to relate conditions today to pretty much any other sheetty point in the entirety of human history.
Capitalism, (relatively) free markets and, especially, human greed and ambition suck in a ton of ways but there is no denying their positive impact in raising masses and masses of the human race out of abject poverty. Capital markets have and always will need course corrections because human beings are imperfect and also often suck. And I freely acknowledge that: 1) we're currently in a new robber baron era that needs to be trust-busted just as has been done previously in our history; and 2) it is morally bankrupt for the richest country in the world to not provide basic, affordable medical care to each and every one of its citizens.
However, throwing the baby out with the bathwater makes no sense. What's the alternative?? And please, not the Scandanavian model, which is to a great degree built on fossil fuels, draconian immigration policy, and/or an ability to essentially ignore spending on national defense. Frankly, there will be a limit to our own economic system's ability to make things really right so long as maniacs like Putin force so much spending on guns instead of butter, and certainly with the looming climate crisis and no easy path away from fossil fuels.
Sincere apologies if I've misinterpreted your post but I can't figure another explanation of your intent when you use the phrase "devastating to the masses" in the context of a discussion about current macroeconomics.