Epstein’s human trafficking organization depended entirely on the wealth management industry (WMI). It was how he obtained the capital to build it, and it was how he hid his activities from the authorities. And none of this was an abuse of the industry; it is precisely how the WMI is designed to work. Nor is it an abuse of the law, because both American and international law has been carefully designed to accomodate the WMI.
…
But capitalism didn’t just provide seed funds for Epstein’s operation. It also provided a whole legal and financial apparatus that helped him find victims and disguise his transactions. An article in Deviant Behavior by sociologist Thomas Volscho observes that at first, “the predominant means for gaining access to potential victims involved Epstein using philanthropy to gain access to youth-serving institutions.”
In particular, Epstein seems to have leveraged immense wealth to buy influence in youth organizations that focused on financially at-risk children and then used the wealth disparity to control them. This was a natural step for Epstein, since wealth managers often work with charitable organizations for tax-avoidance purposes. As his conspiracy matured, Volscho writes, Epstein’s “sex trafficking enterprise was funded by Epstein’s tax shelter advisory business, where he primarily helped wealthy people avoid taxation on the sale and/or bequeathing of their assets and incomes.”
…
So while Epstein likely used blackmail and other illegal schemes to avoid prosecution for his crimes, his primary strategy — offshore wealth management — was not just legal but a central feature of modern financial capitalism. If the Left wants to use the Epstein case to talk about elite impunity, that conversation has to begin with the strategies the rich use to hide their finances that are completely legal.
People often frame Capitalism vs. Socialism as if they represent completely different destinies. I generally see capitalism as the better driver of innovation and individual agency, but it’s important to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: both systems tend to converge toward similar power dynamics over time.
In capitalism, economic capital becomes political power. Wealth concentrates, and those who hold it shape the rules to protect and expand their advantage. In socialism, formal authority and bureaucratic position become the currency of power. Access to resources and opportunities flows through the state apparatus instead of markets. Different mechanisms, same hierarchy.
Across both models, legal and institutional structures tend to favor those already positioned at the top. Power reproduces itself, whether through financial leverage or administrative control.
And a key misconception persists in capitalist societies: people assume they are “capitalists” simply by participating in the market. In reality, unless someone owns productive assets or has significant investments that generate influence and income independent of their labor, they are not a capitalist, they’re a wage earner operating within a system built to reward capital holders.
The systems diverge in theory, but the outcomes often look very similar: a small elite consolidates power, and the proletariat majority must then struggle within the structures created by that consolidation.