[Klinky]

More money might also mean you're just really good at colluding, anti-competing, price fixing/gouging, arbitraging, exploiting, socializing expenses and negative outcomes, or monopolizing.

It's extremely flawed and naive to think a positive balance sheet means a positive outcome for society occurred in the process of obtaining it.

[fighterpilot]

That's why I said I could go on about why it's not perfect. I admit there's downsides, but I still view it as a great thing on net, due to the general tendency to align incentives with value provision.

[Klinky]

It's not just "not perfect", it's extremely flawed. You didn't "go on" at all about its flaws or failures at measuring merit, and only provided a toy example of a superfluous mega-rich celebrity deserving his wealth while ignoring Hollywood's underhanded exploitation and accounting issues.

[TameAntelope]

Because something is "not perfect" or "extremely flawed" doesn't mean there is a better thing out there.

Something can be "extremely flawed" and also be the best option available, such as in this case.

[sudosysgen]

You have to make a case for it that isn't circular first.

The idea that there should not be any democratic input on the economy seems quite unsupported so far.

[laserlight]

How do you know there’s no better alternative out there? I don’t see anyone trying to find one.

[colordrops]

The system is heavily corrupt. The premise that it is mostly working with some flaws itself is heavily flawed.