Maybe because except for the 1% most of the population feels the negative effects of it? Doesn't take a genius to see how broken the system is
The problem is that capitalism has been so successful that everyone feels entitled to its gains instantaneously. Because of global trade wealth can easily become concentrated because market expansion pushes up capital availability and equity of people who have it. Most people in the top echelon of wealth hold it in stocks. That's why when we have a crisis (like 2008) the wealth gap collapses.
Most of the world isn't capitalist, or at least not traditional western capitalism. Including the west currently, which is in an orgy of corruption and distortion and central control and unfree markets.
Your explanation of how things that used to be valuable are now valueless is exactly the problem from the article. If technological trinkets that are highly entertaining but inherently fundamentally worthless are our generations Faberge Eggs, or clickbait journalism on the internet or music on the internet or pr0n on the internet or social signalling spirals on the internet, that's "great" that its worthless so everyone can have it even if they have no money. On the other hand, when its labor or skill or craft or art, that's kind of a problem for everyone who has nothing else to sell, when that's basically the entire population.
There is also a forest for the trees argument. A state that fails most of its population is a failed state. Doesn't matter if one tree is in the best shape in history, or really that one tree doesn't matter at all, if the rest of the forest is dead. Failed states are ripe for revolution and that really great tree is going to get chopped in the guillotine no matter how great its achievement. A state that fails to serve its population will eventually get replaced, peacefully or otherwise.
It's not about material possessions. It's about power and representation. Wealthy people have an absurd amount of influence on the political process, and as their wealth increases in proportion to that of the poor, so does their influence.
Capitalism as an economic system may be fine. The problem is the way it is tightly intertwined with our political process and governance.
[1] http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/inequali...
Here's a more leveled look: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/09/15/wealth-inequality-shr...
There's no doubt it re-accelerated after the crisis, but a lot of that has to do with credit conditions and tight money for the poor, and loose money for the rich.
The WSJ article includes this observation: "The world is still staggeringly unequal, with the tiny sliver of those with $5 million or more in assets (we don’t have the exact number but it’s clearly a select club) owning more than the total population of those with $100,000 or less."
Perhaps there was a small inflection in the evolving wealth gap curve around 2008, but it seems minor and transitory. The article's numbers seem consistent with that.
Capitalism is based on debt/interest, which by definition is broken and only follows a downward spiral.
If people made the connection that capitalism is the thing that's creating all these things in your life that you love.. that those things don't materialize magically as a result of people just doing their thing... that would change the perception of capitalism dramatically.
A Bernie Sanders meme isn't reality. Vastly more than 1% are doing fine.