I agree that free market capitalism ended when the government bailed out the banks.
I think, the issue on that is what would have happened if the banks were not bailed out? Many believe, the western financial system would have collapsed and we would have been sitting amidst 25-30% unemployment right now.
Most economists agree that bailing out the banks was the right thing to do under the circumstances, and faced with the consequences.
But now that we do have a financial system that has not collapsed, we need to rethink how we recover from 10% unemployment and a gaping deficit wound that has been created.
For that to happen, we need more people like Kao, fewer like Soros. Those, after all, just examples. My point is, the system has created incentives for people to be attracted to the Soros-like professions, not the Kao-like professions.
And what we need right now are more the Kao-like innovators (and the Jobs like entrepreneurs, who, to your point, is very wealthy).
But entrepreneurship and innovation are not short-term money-making propositions the way speculation-oriented professions are.
And my point is we're diverting the youth in two directions as a result: (a) an entitlement path, where they expect the government to come to their rescue (b) the speculator path, where they are attracted by easy money.
The path that is longer, harder, riskier - the path of building, creating, innovating - is losing out in the process.