I don’t disagree with your view that profits are a key part of our economy, but I find it interesting to reflect on whether the movement of wealth (especially “excessive” wealth for some definitions) from consumers to capital holders (from a broader class to a more narrow and privileged one) is a necessary feature of any stable and productive economy, and/or if there are other ways to achieve the same features.

The common narrative seems to be our modern capital and corporate system encourages risky investment through the promise of upside return (and limited downside liability) for those who take the risk, then encourages competition that will eventually erode away that profitability for the ultimate end benefit of lower cost and higher quality for consumers.

However I’m not convinced that’s working as intended in the recent era where capital returns seem to be made as much by financial manipulation, “optimisation” of costs/quality, and market capture/lock-in as they do innovation. Meanwhile we have prisoner dilemmas of competition in which the big players innovate just enough to build a moat from disruptive competitors and enable customers to rationalise away planned obsolescence while keeping a stable peace of two or three major players to maintain the pretence of the free market and maximise return without overcompeting or facing regulatory backlash.

It feels like we still pretend the customer is king and the children of the enlightenment are in charge - narratives that once served us, now being used to protect a new and quite different system they’ve given birth to - while the evidence tends to suggest increasing ossification and rent-seeking as reflected by corporate strategy being lure, capture, then turn up the dials.

I’d agree we probably don’t get the iPhone and MacBook Air without the investment incentive so I’m not opposed to free market fundamentals. But when I read, for example, that the average US household generates $2700 annually in revenue for banks after risk costs, I do wonder whether a different model could achieve the same outcomes and maybe leave $300bn in the economy for consumers to allocate elsewhere. Then again maybe it’d just end up in the pockets of whichever other utilities have the most leverage over consumer budgets.