I think your argument actually also touches on something that I see as a fault in recent Western socialist or socialist-aligned movements, which is that market forces and capitalism are often improperly separated. There is often a large focus on how the market is evil, even when it's discussed in a language that decries them as problems of capitalism; for example, people might blame problems such as high rents on capitalism, and then imagine that nationalizing real estate companies will fix it, which it of course most likely won't. So, kind of coming at this from the other side, I do agree that a clear separation is necessary when talking about capitalism vs socialism on the one hand, and market economies vs planned economies on the other hand. But then you have to explain: what is the difference between a market economy and a planned economy, in an age where economic planning in China takes prices and market forces into account, while in the West, a company like Amazon, operating within the market, is so large that it has to do demand planning akin to the Soviet bureaucracy, lest they over- or under-order produce? Which of these societies is truly "more market"?

I think that the market can indeed be a very valuable system to reduce all kinds of inefficiencies. But at the same time, changes in tax code or antitrust enforcement will not alter capitalism's natural tendency toward monopolization, which ultimately turns everything into a planned economy anyhow. So in my opinion, the question is about how to effectively use the positive effects of the market, while also avoiding the less-positive effects that private enterprise has on society at large. And it seems to me like Kantorovich may have been closer to finding an answer than HFT yuppies at wall street will ever be.