Is "Adverse Possessions" too idealistic?

Meister’s discussion of the intertemporal and intratemporal nature of justice was thought-provoking and compelling as was his discussion of the problems with counterfactual causal claims (250).  However, I became suspicious of his argument once he rooted reparations in the capitalistic “options theory” of the pricing in the stock market.  I find this theory highly problematic since much of the injustices that require reparations stem from capitalism.  How equipped is capitalism to deal with the problems that it generates? 

It seems to me that the idea of a constructive trust is an innovative approach to this issue that introduces many important possibilities for reparations, such as the idea of moving away from damages-based reparations and the contingency that even if revolution itself does not occur there is still a scenario in which “grievance itself could still have a calculable value” (p. 253).  I also support the attempt to make “the liquidation of historical grievances conceivable” (p. 255) since the advocates and detractors of reparations that he has outlined in the article show how polarized this debate is.  However, I remain skeptical of this model because it does not seem to address the sophisticated and unethical ways that the market is manipulated, which are exemplified by recent practices that led to the ongoing financial crisis from 2008.  It seems like this market-based approach lends itself to new forms of injustices, like the environmental example that he used on p. 243, but that are not as clear cut as that example because manipulations of the market in the future are not necessarily something that are easily predicted in today’s terms.

The idea of victims under or over-valuing their grievances (p. 254-255) also seems problematic to me because it seems to further rob them of agency by suggesting that the aggrieved are incapable of coming up with a reasonable/adequate response to their suffering.  Having a mediating figure seems logical in the form of having a constructive trust administered by some party, but the admission that this set up is political further complicates this plan since today's political environment proves to be utterly ineffectual at managing the most basic state issues TODAY, how in the world could politics be relied on to adequately manage past injustices, especially those that were administered and authorized by the state?  

So, I don't think that I've necessarily answered my own titular question, but I am still left with this question of how idealistic is this proposition?