Listen, you seem to think I'm arguing against market economies or trying to promote some kind of communism. I'm not. I'm just pointing out capitalism and communism are not the only choices. There have been other systems and some of them lasted a long time and were extremely "successful" (if by success you mean providing a sustainable livelihood for the members).

But I don't disagree that market economies are effective in achieving certain ends. However humanity didn't come down out of the trees to a market economy and market economies likely won't be around when humanity finally ends. They are a phase in human history, that's all. It's not an ideological statement. Just observation and projection.

If a television is a requisite for a high standard of living, great, we're beating Ptolemy. It's disingenuous to pretend that you can do an apples-to-apples comparison across thousands of years and attribute it to market economics. Given the tremendous natural wealth in the United States, we'd probably have a higher standard of living most countries even if we adopted mercantilist economic policies.

This isn't to claim that market economies aren't a great idea, just that I don't think your reasoning holds water.