What is Profit?

[DGS49]

Gnarlylove, the problem with your whole viewpoint is that it is based on the general assumption that there is a fixed amount of money in the economy, and that if one person gets "too much" of it, then other people have been deprived of it as a result.

This economic fallacy is dangerous because it encourages envy and resentment of wealth/profit/success for no valid reason. A person who is in wretched circumstances cannot benefit by being encouraged to see his economic betters as having deprived him of his "rightful" economic benefits.

The fact is that the amount of money in the economy is constantly expanding, as wealth is constantly being created. When a shoemaker takes $10 worth of leather and converts it into a $100 pair of shoes, he has created $90 of wealth, and nobody suffers because of it.

Also, in a "capitalist" economy, commodities (such as human labor) are not valued by their "intrinsic value," which is essentially unknowable, but rather by their economic value, which is determined by Supply & Demand. Thus, you might be the best woodcarver in the world, but if people are not willing to pay a premium for your creations (as compared to mass-produced products), you may end up poor despite your high level of skill.

Focusing on "inequality" is pointless, and blaming it on "capitalism" is actually detrimental to the overall society, as the logical alternative to capitalism - socialism - has been tried in various places and found not to work, due to the failings of human nature. As they used to say in Poland, "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

Unfortunately, the only rational response to the complaint of "too much inequality," is, "So what?"

Get a job. Get a better job. Start a business. Develop marketable skills. Work harder.

It's your problem, not the Government's (i.e., everybody else).

 

[dblack]

In a free market, profit is the material expression of how others value the work you do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Capitalism gave us the following items is such great abundance that Americans don't even think about them: transportation, electricity, running water and computing power.

But, yes, let's implement the same economic system that made Vietnam have to IMPORT 2 millions tons of rice annually to keep its people from starving. After abandoning Democrat/Soviet Central planning in favor of free markets, Vietnam is now the second largest EXPORTER of rice on the planet

 

[chikenwing]

Cutting through all the bullshit, your initial post asserts one fundamental point: "...profit is a zero sum game: profit for one group could not exist without the detriment of another."

I gave you two examples of PROFIT - one might even say excessive profit, and asked you to apply your point to those two examples. One party made a profit: who suffered a loss?

It's not complicated. If you cannot identify someone in my examples of profit who suffered as a result of the profit, then your whole thesis is blown out of the water.

Keep it simple. Inquiring minds want to know.

I tried to be fair in saying capitalism does indeed generate profit and many are inclined to believe the rising tide of capitalism rises all ships at sea. But the truth is, it is impossible to determine if capitalism is ultimately a zero sum or a non-zero sum. But we can think of instances for either side (or ignore certain variables). So yes you have a point and yes I have a point. This isn't an exclusive result produced by capitalism. My point was simply that capitalism has a downside: some of its games are zero-sum, its evident throughout the globe.

When 85 people own as much as 3.5 billion poor people, we need to wonder if the system itself is not responsible for such master/slave dialectic (I'm referring to Hegel's view of this dialectic).

I don't think because many people can benefit from capitalism that we should continue with it just because they do. What about half the world who are either in poverty or in debt? Should we sacrifice their exploited lives just so many of us can strike it rich? No thanks. Count me out. Life isn't about making it rich, its about sharing in this grand circumstance of consciousness. The problem is, more people prefer to accept the challenge of capitalism and run the rat race because there is no other option in town. Either starve or get with the program. This is not how I was taught life is and having studied these issues academically (Ive had econ 101 and 110 thank you very much) I don't care if you refuse to understand my point. I can assure you there are more becoming aware of this.

Bottom line: you can be right without having to disagree with the issue I am presenting.

What are the other options,what are you ideas? You have presented what you see as failures ans deficiencies,what do you suggest?

 

[gnarlylove]

What are the other options,what are you ideas? You have presented what you see as failures ans deficiencies,what do you suggest?

I appreciate your question, and hope it is a sincere one. There have been tons of suggestions going way back into the 1800s till now. There is no lack of opinion on this matter, from single policy changes to an entirely different system that doesn't rely on debt. One of my many suggestions is our system appears to have forgotten debt is made up and forgivable. All fiat currency is made up with no intrinsic value, so if we think we cannot change our systems we are committing the fallacy of reficiation.

But I also am cautious to recommend huge systemic changes..usually shocks to a system are devastating. I want to avoid excessive short term problems and suffering while also securing a future that is much closer to inspired beings with autonomy rather than domination and information (mis-information for that matter--propaganda has prevented the masses from understanding huge faults in a system that is suppose to better the lot of everyone).

So understanding my initial platform for launching into your question, one can begin to understand my intentions are not to harm anyone but is to create a just society for all without systemic oppression (e.g. where blacks aren't charged 10 times more often than whites for possession although whites are abusing drugs more than blacks)! Ultimately I envision a radically different society from ours today not based on ego centric views and capitalism which urges humans to forsake one in order to become profit-maximizing machines. No human naturally acts to maximize their profits in every action, that is called isolated egoism or even a solipsist approach. Indeed, functional psychopaths work better on Wall St than normal empathetic humans. I'd like to ultimately see a society that functions best with empathetic concerns, not some gaudy economic unrealistic ideal of profit maximizing concerns.

But again, in order to reach this better society, we must transition from our ego mania to more empathetic concerns and solidarity in recognition of strange people as fellow sufferers and sojourners (Richard Rorty, Contingency). I think a gradual transition is what the doctor ordered but if anyone recognizes the threat to our ecosystem and biosphere, we are in a heap of shit that won't be going away. The longer we keep pushing capitalists' agenda (the top 2%) of surplus and profit via exploitation, we are going to devastate the earth, our single source of life. So perhaps quick transitions are needed in order to obviate potential planetary devastation (I am not talking Armageddon, I am merely referring to the obvious droughts/floods, displacements, suffering etc that will result from previous resource extraction, transportation, and burning).

SO I ask you, are you sincere or are you trying to create a wedge between us by asking a question you have no interest in learning about? Pardon me for this approach but most people on USMB are not here to discuss ideas but rather are here to fling feces.

 

[dblack]

Cutting through all the bullshit, your initial post asserts one fundamental point: "...profit is a zero sum game: profit for one group could not exist without the detriment of another."

I gave you two examples of PROFIT - one might even say excessive profit, and asked you to apply your point to those two examples. One party made a profit: who suffered a loss?

It's not complicated. If you cannot identify someone in my examples of profit who suffered as a result of the profit, then your whole thesis is blown out of the water.

Keep it simple. Inquiring minds want to know.

I tried to be fair in saying capitalism does indeed generate profit and many are inclined to believe the rising tide of capitalism rises all ships at sea. But the truth is, it is impossible to determine if capitalism is ultimately a zero sum or a non-zero sum. But we can think of instances for either side (or ignore certain variables). So yes you have a point and yes I have a point. This isn't an exclusive result produced by capitalism. My point was simply that capitalism has a downside: some of its games are zero-sum, its evident throughout the globe.

When 85 people own as much as 3.5 billion poor people, we need to wonder if the system itself is not responsible for such master/slave dialectic (I'm referring to Hegel's view of this dialectic).

I don't think because many people can benefit from capitalism that we should continue with it just because they do. What about half the world who are either in poverty or in debt? Should we sacrifice their exploited lives just so many of us can strike it rich? No thanks. Count me out. Life isn't about making it rich, its about sharing in this grand circumstance of consciousness. The problem is, more people prefer to accept the challenge of capitalism and run the rat race because there is no other option in town. Either starve or get with the program. This is not how I was taught life is and having studied these issues academically (Ive had econ 101 and 110 thank you very much) I don't care if you refuse to understand my point. I can assure you there are more becoming aware of this.

Bottom line: you can be right without having to disagree with the issue I am presenting.

What are the other options,what are you ideas? You have presented what you see as failures ans deficiencies,what do you suggest?

Submit.

 

[DGS49]

No economic system can succeed if it assumes that people will act altruistically or for the Common Good. Some people operate that way, but it doesn't take too many deviants to cause the whole system to collapse.

In fact, the only societies that can operate on socialist principles are societies of VOLUNTEERS, such as in a commune, kibbutz, convent, or monastery. Even among the Amish and similar sub-cultures in the U.S., they have to be constantly vigilant to see that people don't take advantage, and that everyone contributes appropriately to the common causes.

What budding socialists don't understand (among the MANY things they don't understand) is that GREED is generally a good thing. Why do I study hard in school? So that I can benefit society, or so that I can make a good living when I get out? Why do I open a business? To serve humanity? Or to get people to pay me for providing goods and services that they want - and get rich in the process?

Businesses - if they are smart - constantly focus on customer service and optimizing customer relationships. They don't do this because they want to make this a better world, they do this because by keeping the customer happy, they ensure that the customer will keep coming back, and will tell all their friends about what good treatment they get. This is how you MAXIMIZE YOUR PROFITS!

Greed.

It makes the world go 'round.

A bit of regulation and government oversight is necessary to put a lid on gross fraud, misrepresentation, theft, and so forth, but most great successes are motivated by greed.

 

[gnarlylove]

No economic system can succeed if it assumes that people will act altruistically or for the Common Good. Some people operate that way, but it doesn't take too many deviants to cause the whole system to collapse.

In fact, the only societies that can operate on socialist principles are societies of VOLUNTEERS, such as in a commune, kibbutz, convent, or monastery. Even among the Amish and similar sub-cultures in the U.S., they have to be constantly vigilant to see that people don't take advantage, and that everyone contributes appropriately to the common causes.

What budding socialists don't understand (among the MANY things they don't understand) is that GREED is generally a good thing. Why do I study hard in school? So that I can benefit society, or so that I can make a good living when I get out? Why do I open a business? To serve humanity? Or to get people to pay me for providing goods and services that they want - and get rich in the process?

Businesses - if they are smart - constantly focus on customer service and optimizing customer relationships. They don't do this because they want to make this a better world, they do this because by keeping the customer happy, they ensure that the customer will keep coming back, and will tell all their friends about what good treatment they get. This is how you MAXIMIZE YOUR PROFITS!

Greed.

It makes the world go 'round.

A bit of regulation and government oversight is necessary to put a lid on gross fraud, misrepresentation, theft, and so forth, but most great successes are motivated by greed.

Wow! Such a frank discussion of your values. I appreciate your revealing your commitment to ideology. I know you don't view it as ideologue because at the center of your world is not only you, but it categorically must be you--you must never be replaced. I just happen to differ with you on that point by thinking I am not the only being that matters. Thus we are driven to entirely different understandings of the world.

I agree that as matter of fact greed propels lotsa of profit generation (whether warranted or not) but is hardly the sole and best incentive--capitalism deceives you into thinking this is the only possible way but that's only true if you cannot see beyond yourself. But since you are firmly centered as the king of your jurisdiction, none of my descriptions of reality are likely to catch your attention. Anything that disavows the self as primary would be to also disavow your entire existence. Your whole life has been predicated on having to pursue your own self-interest.

I'm not saying you are incapable of caring for others and having charitable thoughts--I'm sure you do--but on the whole your perception cannot be concerned with such fringe ideas like that of other sentient beings (let alone the environment or some other species).

John Taylor Bonner, a famous biologist, wrote
While we readily admit that the first organisms were bacteria-like and that the most complex organism of all is our own kind, it is considered bad form to take this as any kind of progression...[One] is flirting with sin if one says a worm is a lower animal and a vertebrate is a higher animal, even though there fossil origins will be found in lower and higher strata."

This is a beautiful quote, I think, and demonstrates our fundamental difference. Clearly you must be appalled by this idea and find it absurd. You feel like you are so superior to a worm, but in reality, you are no more special and will die the same death regardless of how special you think you must be. As long as the ego is central to existence, which is a choice, we have little hope of creating liberty and justice for all. I know your goal is liberty and justice for yourself and family and that's about it so your satisfied. I understand your ideology and have struggled with it myself but there is more to life than the self.

 

[Norman]

Profit is the reward for saving and investing. Investing into capital makes work more profitable and that's why the employees want to be employed by someone else.

Without profit there would be no reason to save and thus no reason to have any jobs at all. Everyone might as well be self employed. Except if you are self employed you pay yourself with profit so that doesn't work either...

"It's impossible to determinate if capitalism is or is not a zero sum game".

No it isn't. The game is clearly NOT a zero sum game. Go back in time 100 years and you can see there is progress, the gdp has risen.

If it was a zero sum game for the worker, why would he even want to be employed? If there was nothing to gain from working to someone else no one would do it!

 

[DGS49]

I was not writing about my PERSONAL life or views, or about anyone's PERSONAL behavior. We can be kind to strangers, give to the poor, work in a soup kitchen, and contribute to all manner of charities in our personal lives, but we are all also economic entities as well, and in that capacity, we are motivated by GREED. We want to get the greatest possible amount of money and benefits for our efforts. We also want to get the greatest possible value when we spend our money. To do otherwise would be stupid.

If you have to choose between working for a friend in his struggling pizza shop or making twice as much money as a sous chef in a fancy restaurant, which one are you going to do? (I am assuming you have financial respsonsibilities). If you can buy a locally-made piece of furniture for $200, or a mass-produced, made-in-China version that is just as good for $100, you are going to buy the cheaper one (if you are normal).

Why? Because you are greedy (self-interested).

And the overall society benefits. The best thing that ever happened to the U.S. car industry was the influx of cheaper, better-made Japanese cars, and the decision by the foreign makers to produce here. GM, Ford, and Chrysler suffered, but we got better cars for less money and we now have a couple hundred thousand Americans making "foreign" cars here in the U.S.

I recently changed insurance companies, even though I have been with my old company for 16 years and they always gave me great service. But I saved almost $3,000 a year by going with someone else.

Why? It's three thousand of my hard-earned, after-tax dollars that I can now spend on something else. I'd be a fool not to make the change. I'm greedy. I want as much money as I can get, and I want to get as much value as I can for every dollar I spend.

Greed makes the world go around.

The biggest philanthropists in history started out as greedy bastards. And millions of us profited by BOTH aspects of their lives. Think Bill Gates. Think Andrew Carnegie.

 

[Darkwind]

By some measures, there is less pollution today that there was even 30 years ago.

I refer you to my follow up post on this thread in case you didn't read it. It might help answer some of your early complaints.

But when you say "by some measure" and assert that kind of logic, then we simply cannot talk. There is no authenticity behind your statement. It's just a gaffe in thinking that I cannot bridge for you on this forum. I'm sure youre intelligent but your views on the biosphere are not respectable..

That's interesting.

You question his respectability because he dares to use the 'by some measure', while your entire Opening Post is nothing but a carefully chosen metric of cherry picked logic and no small amount of twisted ideology mixed in.

Economics is so rarely a zero sum game, it can be said that the zero sum idea is a fallacy when placed in reality and not in a thought exercise.

The one single measurement of how well open and free markets work for the benefit of society at large, is to compare a closed society....like a dictatorship found in...let say Africa.....and then compare that economy with an open an free market where pursuit of passion and ideas run free.

You'll quickly find out which one is the real zero-sum game.

 

[Rshermr]

By some measures, there is less pollution today that there was even 30 years ago.

I refer you to my follow up post on this thread in case you didn't read it. It might help answer some of your early complaints.

But when you say "by some measure" and assert that kind of logic, then we simply cannot talk. There is no authenticity behind your statement. It's just a gaffe in thinking that I cannot bridge for you on this forum. I'm sure youre intelligent but your views on the biosphere are not respectable..

That's interesting.

You question his respectability because he dares to use the 'by some measure', while your entire Opening Post is nothing but a carefully chosen metric of cherry picked logic and no small amount of twisted ideology mixed in.

Economics is so rarely a zero sum game, it can be said that the zero sum idea is a fallacy when placed in reality and not in a thought exercise.

The one single measurement of how well open and free markets work for the benefit of society at large, is to compare a closed society....like a dictatorship found in...let say Africa.....and then compare that economy with an open an free market where pursuit of passion and ideas run free.

You'll quickly find out which one is the real zero-sum game.

Uh, what world do you live in. There is no open market. Take an econ class. Learn what the requirements for an open market are. Then compare that with ANY economy in the world.

 

[gnarlylove]

GDP is simply not a measure of well-being or life satisfaction. There is a non-zero sum arc to history but in the immediate human life span it's much more difficult to tell whether that arc is presently bending towards or away from well being. Don't confuse the two. Policies of the last 30 years are responsible for extreme poverty that simply should not exist in the wealthiest country on earth by far.

GDP: A Flawed Measure of Progress | New Economy Working Group
Dethroning GDP as our measure of progress - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Wall Street’s Zero Sum Game: Phantom Wealth

 

[gnarlylove]

By some measures, there is less pollution today that there was even 30 years ago.

I refer you to my follow up post on this thread in case you didn't read it. It might help answer some of your early complaints.

But when you say "by some measure" and assert that kind of logic, then we simply cannot talk. There is no authenticity behind your statement. It's just a gaffe in thinking that I cannot bridge for you on this forum. I'm sure youre intelligent but your views on the biosphere are not respectable..

That's interesting.

You question his respectability because he dares to use the 'by some measure', while your entire Opening Post is nothing but a carefully chosen metric of cherry picked logic and no small amount of twisted ideology mixed in.

Economics is so rarely a zero sum game, it can be said that the zero sum idea is a fallacy when placed in reality and not in a thought exercise.

The one single measurement of how well open and free markets work for the benefit of society at large, is to compare a closed society....like a dictatorship found in...let say Africa.....and then compare that economy with an open an free market where pursuit of passion and ideas run free.

You'll quickly find out which one is the real zero-sum game.

The claim was "by some measure the earth is less polluted than it was 30 year ago' which is just not based in reality. THe problem isn't my logic, it's such a shock to you that you refuse to accept it has any validity for it would challenge the whole structure of your well being and how society operates based on wage slavery. Fact.

 

[Indeependent]

Profit inspired act that leads to degradation of society and standards:
Rat meat sold as mutton: Crackdown sparks dozens of arrests in China - World News

Yeah, don't focus on China's growing middle class, economy and GDP. Focus on how you need government to feed, clothe and house you

Forget about China as their Labor Ready force is being laid off in order to off-shore work to Viet Nam.
Yes, Shang Hai is a beautiful city but there are lots of other cities that aren't.

Home flipping produces good jobs based upon region and availability of cheap labor.
Mexicans are NOT making more money this year than in any prior year even though Spiderman is making more money.

The guys who invented the new zipper will make deserdly make millions.
Physicians have earned their pay.

Yep....random thoughts for all the lawyers and accountants who work hard.

 

[BobPlumb]

I made more money this year than last year. More profit.

I did that by rehabbing houses and providing families with safe comfortable places to live.

Who lost in that deal?

I'm not accusing you or anyone of being a bad person. Everyone on USMB seems to take most posts personal. I'm looking for an intelligent dialogue of the system but it gets cluttered with re-direction of the discussion, not that your point isn't valid. I'm mostly referring to what I've generally seen on USMB.

Anyway, to answer your question, where did your building materials come from? Surely you didn't source them yourself, they came from somewhere. Perhaps from a forest in South America. Or maybe it was fabricated stuff made in Taiwain. Cheap labor is used all around the globe to get products made for bottom prices. People are exploited all over for working and being insufficiently compensated so as to struggle to live.

The fossil fuels used to transport your products are damaging the environment. I know there is no other method but profit wants us to have no other choice. To have choices might be to choose life over profit.


The screws you bought may have come from Lowes which is owned by Wal-mart and they are notorious for exploiting American labor and around the globe. The system is so inter-dependent that anything we do involves the efforts of someone to produce surplus. More often than not people are not paid adequate wages. Anyone who works deserves to live without hunger insecurity. However, those who own much of the world's resources continue to exploit these "free" resources and selling them to us even though we don't need them in many cases like disposable plastic crap that fills the shelves.

Capitalism depends on continual growth and as long as we keep chopping down the earth (90% of forests in America have been leveled) we have to choose between slowing the global economy driven by profit in order to keep the biosphere in tact or we can annihilate all of the earth in search for profit so that future generations have nothing but a barren landscape.

Maybe this is too advanced and you think I'm some idiot, faggot, anarchist libturd whatever. If you do, don't waste your time because if we can't respect each other to begin with, how can we have any way to create genuine discussion? I'm glad you made money and were able to support yourself but unlike yourself, most people are making less money and its not just their fault.

Profit is ruining our social fabric and planet. this is a fact. you can ignore it but someday it will blow up in our faces and will cause unprecedented global suffering that should have been prevented. My aim is a safe and free world for all, not a world where i can score big while my fellow humans suffer in a wake of planetary destruction.

I stopped reading when I got to "cheep labor", and "People are exploited". Would those "exploited people" be better off if they did not have those jobs?

 

[Indeependent]

GDP is simply not a measure of well-being or life satisfaction. There is a non-zero sum arc to history but in the immediate human life span it's much more difficult to tell whether that arc is presently bending towards or away from well being. Don't confuse the two. Policies of the last 30 years are responsible for extreme poverty that simply should not exist in the wealthiest country on earth by far.

GDP: A Flawed Measure of Progress | New Economy Working Group
Dethroning GDP as our measure of progress - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Wall Street’s Zero Sum Game: Phantom Wealth

Of course GDP is valid, after all, isn't everyone on the assembly line making a fortune?

 

[Indeependent]

I made more money this year than last year. More profit.

I did that by rehabbing houses and providing families with safe comfortable places to live.

Who lost in that deal?

I'm not accusing you or anyone of being a bad person. Everyone on USMB seems to take most posts personal. I'm looking for an intelligent dialogue of the system but it gets cluttered with re-direction of the discussion, not that your point isn't valid. I'm mostly referring to what I've generally seen on USMB.

Anyway, to answer your question, where did your building materials come from? Surely you didn't source them yourself, they came from somewhere. Perhaps from a forest in South America. Or maybe it was fabricated stuff made in Taiwain. Cheap labor is used all around the globe to get products made for bottom prices. People are exploited all over for working and being insufficiently compensated so as to struggle to live.

The fossil fuels used to transport your products are damaging the environment. I know there is no other method but profit wants us to have no other choice. To have choices might be to choose life over profit.


The screws you bought may have come from Lowes which is owned by Wal-mart and they are notorious for exploiting American labor and around the globe. The system is so inter-dependent that anything we do involves the efforts of someone to produce surplus. More often than not people are not paid adequate wages. Anyone who works deserves to live without hunger insecurity. However, those who own much of the world's resources continue to exploit these "free" resources and selling them to us even though we don't need them in many cases like disposable plastic crap that fills the shelves.

Capitalism depends on continual growth and as long as we keep chopping down the earth (90% of forests in America have been leveled) we have to choose between slowing the global economy driven by profit in order to keep the biosphere in tact or we can annihilate all of the earth in search for profit so that future generations have nothing but a barren landscape.

Maybe this is too advanced and you think I'm some idiot, faggot, anarchist libturd whatever. If you do, don't waste your time because if we can't respect each other to begin with, how can we have any way to create genuine discussion? I'm glad you made money and were able to support yourself but unlike yourself, most people are making less money and its not just their fault.

Profit is ruining our social fabric and planet. this is a fact. you can ignore it but someday it will blow up in our faces and will cause unprecedented global suffering that should have been prevented. My aim is a safe and free world for all, not a world where i can score big while my fellow humans suffer in a wake of planetary destruction.

I stopped reading when I got to "cheep labor", and "People are exploited". Would those "exploited people" be better off if they did not have those jobs?

If we can ignore our borders, we can ignore our Constitution.

 

[gnarlylove]

I stopped reading when I got to "cheep labor", and "People are exploited". Would those "exploited people" be better off if they did not have those jobs?

For some yes; for some no. The problem is people are meant to be worse off it they don't sell their time and labor for food and survival called exploitation or cheap labor or wage slavery. The system creates a dependence on the "job creators" that they are able to rent (rather than own) people. Hence, I question the validity of our system that exploits the majority of human beings on this planet for the joys and excesses of people like myself, you, and the top 20%. Instead of offering humans the space and time to pursue their nurtured inclinations, they create the need to enter the workforce or die.

So yes, the world is still based on slavery, for they have no choice either suffer or eat and few people will choose suffering. So we all comply based out of necessity, not choice. This is a flawed system that operates based on archaic ideas that the elite must rule the thronged masses.

 

[KevinWestern]

So what does everyone think, is profit purely a positive sum game for everyone? Or can we see it play out in unmistakable zero-sum ways? A high profit margin is the result of surplus generated at a high cost to the workers (since they are compensated less for their work creating the high margin). This graphic helps visually represent my thesis.

I disagree with you on this gnarly. Why knock making a profit? A profit is simply something that occurs when a company – for example – creates something (with materials) that is worth more (on the market) than just the sum of its parts. Why is that a bad thing?

Also, I disagree with your assertion that people are “worse off” today than in the past. I mean, most people in the US – even the poor – have heated places to live, access to food that can be procured with zero effort (in the past you’d have to grow/hunt), clean running water, indoor bathrooms, televisions, refrigerators, access to internet, wardrobes of clothing, shoes, motor vehicles, etc. Even the little things – like salt & pepper, or bathing more than once a month – were once unattainable by anyone but royalty. I mean, how about we just compare the life expectancy of people now vs 500 years ago (what can be more valuable to quality of life, than extending one’s life?).

The free market has been a blessing for humans, and it’s by far the best system we’ve got. You can theorize all day about systems where wealth is shared more equally, etc, however IN PRACTICE those systems always have turned out to be catastrophic.