>this part is capitalism working as intended and (mostly) as desired.
I think we need to be careful to define what we mean by "efficient". Do we frame efficient as "churns out the highest revenue / spending ratio" (ironically evaluating capitalism by a metric created by capitalism)? Then yes, that may well be true. But what about the overworked and abused workers? What about the stifled competition? What about the 40% increase in fuel and emissions to reduce shipping from 3 to 2 days? Is it all worth it, to get your consumerist crap a few hours earlier in the post? This are not just rhetorical questions, these are actual questions we need to pose ourselves (e.g. is it worth an excess X million tons of CO2 per year to get prime deliveries Y hours faster).
Would that fit into a definition like "increases overall quality of life the most"? Food for thought, in my opinion.
>for instance, contracts (like EULA's) shouldn't be one-sided ultimatums inflicted on the indivudual, but the beginning of a negotiation between two equal parties.
Isn't this one of the classical critiques of capitalist (e.g. Marx), that it is impossible to have a negotiation between two equal parties when the two parties are so... well, unequal.