Hey TB, thanks for the posts. The videos you include contain a LOT of info, so it's gonna take me some time to dig through it. But I appreciate you providing.
Some of the things you said in your post:
"The system your post makes a defense for, is an inherently increasingly corrupt construct. The market system is waste, exploitation, imbalance/inequality, etc…..
This has proven irrefutable throughout the course of history. The very thing you’re seeming to defend (that largely stems from enculturation rather than deeply analyzed facts) is where the “better” I speak of is vital to comprehend."
The history of man on the planet is only about 5,000-10,000 years old, and but for only extremely brief spurts of time where democracy/republic forms of gov't with the Greeks and Romans existed, the entire history of man prior to 250 years ago was tribal, strongman forms of gov't, where mercantile capitalism was not exercised. So the course of history doesn't tell us much about capitalism, as it's pretty much a small blip in time over human history.
I do agree with you that exploitation is bad, and that capitalism has its share of it. But isn't it more a function of the human condition? such that it's really more a function of where you have human interaction you have exploitation? The reason I say that is that communism and socialism (as well as fascism) have all done a pretty good job of exploitation as well. Nevertheless, I do agree with you that identifying exploitation and rooting it out is a worthy goal of any structure.
Inequality... that's a tough one for me. Why do we expect anything other than unequal outcomes? We're not all equal, and that's always been pretty obvious to me for as long as I can remember. Some of us are smarter than others. Some of us are faster than others. Some of us are harder workers than others. When such huge disparities exist on the input side, why are we shocked when we get disparate results? Just think of your HS senior class? You knew who was going to jail, and you knew who was going to be successful. (always a few exceptions!) Why did you know this? Some people were lazy asses, some people were bulldogs who always gave 100%. No shock that those people generally did quite well for themselves. The only way to "fix" these types of inequality is for an institution to exist that is strong enough to "take" from one individual and "transfer" it to another individual. Such a remedy takes a very strong institution having enough power to easily be corrupted. Just one example is all the socialist gov't leaders in Venezuela... the lights are still on in their neighborhood, aren't they?
Bottom line is I think inequality is only a problem when the bottom group of people don't have enough, NOT when the disparity reaches some arbitrary amount. For example, let's say a family of 4 needs $40K/year to "make it." If one family of 4 has $30K and another family has $100K, I see a problem because the smaller family doesn't have enough to make it. If they both magically had their income triple, the one family has $90K/year, and the other has $300K/year. If you only need $40K to make ends meet, is the new situation better or worse? I'd say it's better because the family has $50K more than what they need, however, the disparity between the two families has tripled from $70K to $210K. So, is the new situation better or worse? If you focus on inequality you say the second situation is worse. I say hogwosh.... That's why I say that income inequality in the US is BS. The gang bangers in the hood aren't starving, and don't steal because they're hungry. The fact that Bezos or Musk have billions compared to them has no bearing on anything, IMO.
Just some of things that go through my mind. I will try to check out the videos!