If you were in charge

Wouldn't you set things up so that you made money either way the wind blew? Heads you win, tales I loose.

Karl had it backwards: while capitalism does necessitate a parasitic relationship, it is the coerced consumer dependent on capital--if the latter dies, so too does the former--not the other way around. Or, rather, Marx did have it right in his period of infancy-capitalism. The simplicity of the structures involved engendered a clear, direct line--transparency and accountability-- in the transfer of wage-labor into profits, as Marx saw the host (worker) to parasite (capitalist) relation. Since then, workers have had to do less and less for more and more--the price paid for labor's compliance with business since WWII, to be sure.

Things eventually got turned around, or at least expanded so that larger parts of our society shared in dividends as well, whether actual dollars from investment or quality, cheap consumer goods or, even, a home.

This is not due to the success of capitalism at raising up the whole of the economy, per se; this was/is only possible because the exploitation of wage-labor was shifted to the developing world, or the better sounding emerging markets, like a coming-out party for adolescent states.
At the same time, the access to credit, for business and government only no longer, was given to the working classes to foster higher living conditions (by way of heavy consumer spending); capitalism's shown exemplar. It's the classic bait-and-switch: play by the rules and receive your economic security; only, there is no true security in a system of credit w/ nothing really behind it but algorithms and greed.