Yes, good observation. I was intentionally being as generous as possible to show that EVEN IF you look at the most favorable view of the US system, it is still vastly different than the Steem-based system we use and, I would argue, inferior. It's this idea of arguing from a perspective of, "what happens if we accept all of your premises as true?" People have been criticizing the US system for decades from the perspective of, "Your system is corrupt!" to no avail because that changes the discussion to an argument about what is corruption and whether it does or does not exist. By accepting the premises (e.g. that banking sector uses experts to distribute funds based on productivity) you can move on to the question of whether logic or science backs up the claim that your system will achieve a desirable outcome.

Thanks for the very thoughtful comment! No need to apologize for the lack of concision, I'm the same way :)