If you're going to say I'm wrong, at least point out how I'm wrong. There isn't a big difference between what I said and:
>>corrupt governments siphon wealth into privileged hands at the expense of the public good.<<
The effect is the same. Too much money in too few hands. Countries don't only need the rule of law to protect us from violence. We also need it to protect us from semi-legal forms of theft.
Monarchs gathered wealth and provided protection, and they've been going out of business for quite a while now. Mexico has the richest person in the world along with a lot of corruption and lots of very poor people. How can a place be viable enough to support multibillionaires, and still have people living in shacks?
I'm trying to understand the truth.
That's basically how capitalism works if left to its own devices. The place doesn't have to do anything at all.
To use extreme examples, in one case, the concentration comes from enslaving a populace, while in the other case the concentration could come from a pure free market where only contracts are enforced (and thus some people become extraordinarily wealthy by benefiting large numbers of people, as Steve Jobs & Bill Gates have.)