you have defined capitalistic success only by capitalistic principles, so of course it comes out positive. you have expounded well on the most narrow definition of 'good', and reinforced it with the continued talk of societal 'losers' (and implied 'winners'). you have completely failed to give any credence to a wider or different conception of 'good'.
by the same logical exercise i could say that good rests in promoting equity and in preventing suffering in vulnerable people, and then conclude that capitalism is a complete failure on a global scale.
would it not be more effective to start from a debate over goals before we proclaim the success or failure of a system?