I think that there are many aspects to this thread title.
On the subject of being able to reach the top then i do actually think that both the USA and UK (possibly the two most capitalist major economies) do provide the environment where if you are opportunistic enough, you can reach the top of a company. Equally i think that both these countries (USA especially) also somewhat penalize those people that are not able to due to a lack of government sponsored training unless you are young or go down the university route. I am a keen believer of equal opportunity and while the rich do have a better starting position still, i think that in both countries you can become successful to the point of being a millionaire.
In regards to the larger scope then we have to look politically. As a young Conservative Party supporter in the UK i do have a leaning towards the free market however i believe that in reality we need adequate regulation to keep the economy stable and prevent a business dominance political model in some industries occurring. In the case of banking, this has occurred as evidenced by the lack of adequate reform to prevent another 'credit crunch'.
I actually think though that it is industry specific. While the majority of people in Saudi Arabia are very poor, they have got rich from using their own resources which are in demand (oil) and as such as long as basic needs are provided (shelter, food, water) then i do see that as a good enough starting point and hope that greater wider prosperity and even democracy will come later. I guess what i am saying is that i can justify morally why a developing economy making money from a resource can have a somewhat elitist system.
In regards to banking though i think that the industry has been allowed to become too dominant and believe that no business should be allowed to become 'too big to fail'. What is more, it is my belief that these business violate capitalism. I shall explain...
The economic system in the UK and USA developed like this.. Capitalism > Monetarism > Corporatism
Now, a clothes company for instance is a corporatist entity operating within the confines of monetarism.
A bank on the other hand is actually right now a monetary entity. These businesses are built around the supply of money and have been allowed to exist on the basis of a fractional reserve system. What is more, the 1986 (UK) and 1992 (USA) acts have allowed otherwise separate entities (retail and investment) to merge so that a bank can merely use the money in its retail bank to gamble in its investment wing.
As an advocate of the free market i do believe that business servicing the needs and wants of society is the most efficient way to manage the planets resources however when an investment bank does not have to hold any money at all because it can use the personal savings from it;s retail arm, i do honestly see that as a violation of capitalism. I believe that the essence of corporatism needs to be present on a much bigger
scale to prevent banks trading completely money which does not exist.
It is not morally right that banks can make billions in profit while abusing the economic system. They must be put in check so that profit can be made from real money.
haha