>No

You aren't disagreeing with me. The claim is that we live in the best world possible, not the best world imaginable. The compromises you mention are necessary due to the underlying reality of resource scarcity. We may act to change our environment in many ways but can not violate the laws of the universe.

Manufacturer self-interest is not a law of the universe. Manufacturers do what's best for them, and not for some idealized free market. Often,they fail to do what's best for the org in the long term because they comprise humans who mostly care about the short term (bonuses, careers and such).

"If better was possible, it would already exist" can be filed under Capitalism Fantasy because it ignores all confounding factors. It also fails to explain why curremt consumer products are getting worse (for the consumer, but more profitable for the producer e.g. TVs, washing machines, fridges)

This expansion just makes the claim into a truism with no useful information. It's the same shape as a No True Scotsman reply.