Hi, you have to open your mind, your train of thought. You think you either have socialism or capitalism. Socialism does not mean price fixing, wage fixing, profit fixing etc... This is not black and white. For example China is communist right, except they have totally embraced essentially a capitalism market economy... Canada is a socialist county - but we also have a capitalist market economy. For health care we fix prices that the government will pay, but wages and profits are not fixed. If a hospital wants more profit, they simply increase the services they can offer. BUT the government does limit how much they will pay for services so they can cover the entire population. Since they are a single payer they can negotiate the costs better.
What you really have to look at is who benefits from your system. This is my point for the banks too. If they have effectively unlimited ability to make loans, then their profit is only limited by finding customers to take out new loans. This is one of the reasons for the 2009 financial crisis - excessive lending to non-credit worthy clients (subprime mortgages).
Moving back to the central banks. Our federal governments in the US and Canada, have the ability to get their central banks to create money to fund them, we see this in the national debs we carry. In Canada the government of Canada owns the Bank of Canada, but in the US the Federal Reserve is owned by it's private member banks so it's effectively a private corporation. I think they do have to send their profits back to the treasury department though. What this means is that our government's ability to fund services is limited by our own self imposed budgeting, and our fundamental understanding of debt. Both the US and Canada owe a majority of their debt, to themselves.... It's like you having your own printing press, and having to print your own money to pay yourself back.
For me the proof is in the reality that the US government can fully fund the military, but chooses to not be able to fully fund healthcare. They can fully fund assistance to other countries, but cannot fully fund university education. We see the same thing in Canada to a lesser extent since we spend much less on the military. So in the end the beneficiaries of this spending are those "wealthy" individuals who benefit from the money going from the government to their businesses. The short answer is for you to get into business and you don't have to deal with this mess! The problem is that all those workers are being left behind as many of the businesses no longer pay a fair share to their employees. You also see then that as a direct function, the richer you become, the more of other people's debt money you hold. This is the problem our money system creates, but to get rich is the American dream - every one's dream.
If you look at it from say a billionaire's perspective, if you were to allow money to filter down to the masses, through good jobs, high pay, good social benefits, etc. then you are effectively making yourself not as rich. From the billionaire's view (dems and republicans are both here), you should restrict this as much as possible.
What I think is happening is that the poorest of the ones left behind are starting to revolt, what else can they do? The only way out if people are not helped by their government is through education. I look at everyone I know who got a good education and they are all doing well. Look at doctors, lawyers etc. Look at unionized employees like police, they are also doing well. But even in IT our jobs are being outsourced, we are also feeling the pinch.