>>1000>you know, the stuff we perceive every day comingfrom big corp.
Most hardcore liberals would argue that the existence of megacorps that are a law unto themselves is a product of government intervention. Without entering into a parasitic relationship with the state these organisations would inevitably become inefficient, lose focus, and collapse under their own weight. The fact that legislators also refuse to let large corps collapse for fear of short term economic consequences is its own issue.
I don't think you're ever going to find an unbiased take on economics, any author that purports to be is trying to hide his biases which is worse, in my opinion. The best economics book I've read is J.A. Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, it's full of these insanely clever detached observations and almost anti-ideological in that Schumpeter throws sand in the face of all the conventional positions at the time (written in the '30s).
tl;dr; capitalism is doomed to fail because the more wealth it creates in society the more it breeds a sense of antipathy among the intelligentsia, the same way the Church's fostering of literacy and learning eventually led to the enlightenment. Socialism, on the other hand, is completely impossible in practice and every Socialist regime will have to adopt market reforms to survive. They'll become essentially capitalist societies where everyone has to wave a red banner and pretend they're doing Socialism. In fact, this phony Socialism will be even more capitalist than capitalism since there can be no independent labour movements, the state and industry are one and the same, and any dissenters can be branded enemies of the people.