Capitalism invented the mechanism of always keeping us nearly satisfied, but not completely.
A mechanism or "the mechanism"?
Please excuse and correct me if I misunderstand ... but what is the point of this -- other than a piece of rhetorical mischief?
Do you claim that before capitalism there was no mechanism that kept people nearly, but not completely satisfied?
The Buddha only spoke to people who didn't feel "nearly satisfied" (what ever that is)?
Whatever might be said of the comment above in general I think it's accurate to observe ...
Some critiques of capitalism move so quickly into silliness or worse that what one should suspect that whatever "cure" or solution offered or suggested is probably going to be worse than the disease. Or at least, one wouldn't want to live in a society ruled by the level of reasoning demonstrated by the critiques.
But then again, it's been observed more than once that the quality of people, virtue, practical ethics and thinking in a society may count as much or more than the form of government or economics they follow.
When we move beyond platitudes and the "view from 50,000 feet" and get down to facts -- relevant information that can be checked, information that diverse people can agree upon as tests -- then it gets difficult to maintain a rosy self-assurance in the righteousness of one's beliefs. That applies all around, to capitalism's supporters too. But compassion and care require going there.
I start with the working hypothesis that twitter length pronouncements are little more that some kind of signaling until demonstrated otherwise. My questions are invitations for the writer to demonstrate otherwise.