I would recommend reading some stuff of austrian economists, look up for a Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", or if you are not really that interested in economical philosophy, it might be good choice to look for some graphs of Steven Pinker's publications.
The very essential point of capitalism you miss is the fact that, altough capitalism itself stretches the gap between the "wealth status" of the richest and the poorest, it also rises the level of income of the poorest, so it's a win-win situation.
Another line of argumentation: the best, or one of the best, health care system in the world according to most ratings is the one of Singapore - and guess what? they have one of the lowest input of GDP into the health care system, yet it's one of the most effective in the world. And it's largely based on private sector of which many are so scared.
There is no denial that government has a role to play in the game. But the simpliest way to look at this is to ask a question: is there a solution we can get without the government that is effective? And for many question the answer would be yes. But let's take police/ military/ air-pollution. These are not a thing you can put under the free-market operation, since it's uneffective there. So the answer here would be no: governemnt is needed to give us the best possible outcome.
I guess you would go with minimum-wages/ universal income/ fully centralized health care system and so on. Just look at the data, and the answer would be obvious. I really don't want to judge your knowledge, but it seems like you drive your opinion simply on emotions. How would you limit those billionaires? Put high taxes on them? Well, they will register their companies in tax havens. By the way, they offer the most workplaces to people, and competition is the factor to drives the development. It's obvious that the bussiness has no morals, but there is no efective solution for that.
You would say that workers in Bangladesh are exploited because capitalism looks for the cheap workforce. The latter is true, but the problem of these people's poverty is mainly because they have no other opportunities/ alternatives. If you look at the data, there is a straightforward corellation between poverty and corrupted/socialist/communist goverments - mostly in Asia. Will you tell these companies to pay them 10 times more? Don't be surpised if you pay twice for the iphone or whatever you would like to have. Will you tell them not to hire these people for such poor money? They will starve to death. So maybe the problem lies within corrupted goverments holding power in their hands and regulating any sphere of life, so that no competition have an opportunity to flourish, and entrepreneur attitude is not encouraged?
I'm living in Poland. We have some kind of welfare state intorduced here for a couple of years now. The goverment came up with an idea of giving 500 PLN to the family for each child they raise until their 18's. Guess what happened? The number of birth's is barely moved (which was a fundament for these politics), the professional activity within the women dropped siginificantly. The taxes also has been risen, and the number of new companies fell too.
The welfare may seem to work. It all looks so pink and beautiful, but it's essentially ineffective. There is that great myth of Scandinavian countries that work so well under the social-economy. The fact is, that countires like Norway had a "wild-capitalism" up to mid 19th century, when they converted into the current system, and they take credit now for the wealth they gathered. More recent data from the last decade proves, that it's rather a downwards trend than the rise.
So before you listen to people like Bernie Sanders or people alike, get to know what capitalism truly means. It obviously has some flaws in which goverment can interfere, but it's good to know reasons why it happens rather than shooting random solution that seems obvious and effective, rather than are. Look what happened to Greece. It's the perfect example of a country not fully socialist, but largely welfare. It's a bankrupt now.
And when it comes to Scandinavian countries again, it's also important what is the factor of their current politics working for so long. Max Weber wrote on that in he's essays and "Protestant Ethics". A very interesting point of view.
So, I'm definitely not a right-winger. I'm a libertarian. But it's pretty good to look what's really effective and what is not. And some literature may shed a light on these topics I'm not a capitalism-till-my-dying-breath type one a guy. But I can't think of any other way of redistribution that wpuld fair and effective, and all data actually proves this is the way. And next time you talk about profit-only, consumerism-free-market, think honestly of your own contribution to that state of affairs, rather that blaming an entire economical system for that. I can blindly bet you contribute (as I do), that that thing. I have no Instagram, I use no apps, I use an old phone that brother gave me - i find these things pity, yet I do not blame capitalism for that. It's just people who are retarded That's why I support anti-consumerism activists - there is the true power. Thre governemnt won't change a shit about it with some regulations, which people always can get around Fun: look at Greta Thunberg - a girl who fights with global warming. Do you realize what she does is a great disservice to the cause, distracting people from solutions? The proper thing people should have done years ago was to invest into green-energy field of Research and Development - and here we agree - this is where Governement can (but may not always be) effective