Surplus in economics doesn't refer to money

It refers to additional utility

And utility is the economics term for welfare

Capitalism tends to be good at this **if** we make some assumptions

Or rather **iff**

Meaning "if and only if" if your familiar with mathematic proofs

The assumptions are big though and don't work with Western Christian assumptions of original sin

The biggest assumption is that people make choices that are to their greatest own benefit

To use a concrete example then, consumer products. An efficient system brings down costs for consumers and makes TVs cheaper for instance. Is this your economic definition of increased surplus and utility?

That is one example, but far from a definition

It's more of a model for general decisions

It doesn't only apply to direct purchases

You can apply it to any decision really

So this assumes then that free markets are moral forces that drive down prices generally, both domestically and internationally?

No

It assumes that people make the best decisions for themselves

Which is absolutely false due to human depravity.

I am missing the point then. I am thinking about this like Tucker Carlson.

Capitalist could drive costs up at times actually

But that could be more efficient at times too

Free markets lead to improved standard of living, but all things considered they actually destroy communities and make life more miserable

Material gain, spiritual and collective loss

That isn't really true though

Look at any third world country

Look at Chile as prime example

When capitalism is implemented, people stop starving to death, crime rates fall, governments stabilize, etc.

When Walmart buys out all the local stores, the community suffers a blow to the organic commercial collective and it's identity.

That's an example of corporationism though. Not capitalism

Ok I see where you're coming from

This is why I don't like arguing about this outside of actual economics schools -__-

People attribute all sorts of stuff to various economic systems

Usually falsely

Like any complex topic, it's hard to settle on definitions and ends up derailing the whole discussion. It's the same reason I can't argue political theory with most people.

I'd have to look at Walmart specifically, but most examples of massive corporations taking over are a direct result of government intervention

Examples include energy companies, phone, ISPs, cable companies, satellite, TV networks, Radio networks

I think in principle capitalism works well. All theories must applied to reality though. In practice, even the best instances of capitalism become very corrupt and problematic. Fascism and Corporatism were purposely developed to offer a pragmatic solution to the ills of systems developed by intellectuals with no heed for the common man and his experience. That's really the crux of it. I love capitalism and the freedom it affords in theory, but no capitalistic system, whether it's run well or not, has resulted in anything but a spiritually drained people with lots of cheap plastic stuff to comfort them.

I could go into more examples from earlier in the 1920s too, but those are the big ones today. Disney, MSM news, Verizon, AT&T, etc.

I think your misattributing the blame though

Why do you blame the economic system for those things?

You clearly know your stuff too, so I'll defer to you on economic principle. I just need the human and social angle to be addressed before anything else. That's been my shift on economics over the last few years.

I do think that culture is downstream from economics a lot of the time