> It's not about altruism, it's just about what works best. I think there's a lot of evidence to be found by just looking around that the former isn't working especially well.

This is not how logic works. Saying that one system is not working well (which is, again, debatable, see how China and Japan grew in the last 75 years) is not evidence for another system working better. Ultimately you seem to have a naive view of the world and not much understanding of macroeconomics. I will have to point you to a textbook because I cannot explain it all from this level of understanding.

I have only taken two economics classes, so you're right about the naiveté. But it's hard to get excited about continuing such study when so many signs point to status-quo macroeconomics being a mechanism for harming the many to benefit the few. We're facing down a probable future where large swaths of the planet will be uninhabitable due to a deteriorating climate, and the only thing macroeconomics has to say about it is:

> Look at all of the growth we've achieved, high-five guys!

Well if you come from a third world country like I do and see first hand just how well capitalism works when lifting your family up from literal slum-like conditions to something middle class, you would understand why people say "high five, guys!" Does it have its problems, sure, but one cannot deny its effects. Every system has its flaws, it's just that certain systems like capitalism actually do what they say they'd do.

Thanks for sharing that perspective. It's a bit of a check-your-privilege moment for me.

What information I have from my travels and conversations has lead me to believe that the global market has been more of an exploitative force than an uplifting one, but I'm perhaps a bit too young to have a basis for comparison. I wasn't really aware of these things at a time when I could have a "before" snapshot. I just see the cracks in the "after" one.