Fully disagree here. I could list a hundred egregious examples where this isn't true for major aspects of life, but it's late and I'm tired of arguing on the internet. Perhaps tomorrow I'll respond with examples.
The contest is if other people can list _more_ things where it _does_ align. And even if the misalignment is more frequent than alignment, are there any other systems that are better? I agreed with the general sentiment of your post and agree there are a lot of wrongly incentivized bahaviors in capitalism. It's just that finding workable alternatives is a challenge in of itself.
No it doesn't. FFS bakers used to adulterate their flour with crap like chalk because it was cheaper. And there's many many examples of things like that. The market optimizes for price and only in scenarios where competition doesnt have a high bar.
> Markets optimize for the needs of their participants
They optimize for what they want, not what they need, which is a big difference. They would probably align with public good if it was the latter. Also, they optimize for what people who have money want.
Participants want comfort (which we can't blame them for) and are not incentivized to solve poverty.
Not saying that capitalism did not bring good stuff (won't state it neither), but part of the current result is global warming, pollution and the existence of people living in bad conditions.
> but part of the current result is global warming
Global warming is rather mostly a consequence of overpopulation. In the past, people often died of starvation or illnesses. "Unluckily" capitalism managed to reduce these problems by a lot.
> and the existence of people living in bad conditions.
In most communist countries, the living conditions were worse, so this is rather again a success story of capitalism.
Fully disagree here. I could list a hundred egregious examples where this isn't true for major aspects of life, but it's late and I'm tired of arguing on the internet. Perhaps tomorrow I'll respond with examples.