Implicit in the statement &quot;giving people what they want&quot; is a set of assumptions about what &quot;want&quot; means. Do I want life-saving medicine? Do I want a soul-sucking job that pays the bills? Do I want to be de-facto-required to participate in Facebook in order to socialize? I may voluntarily choose all of these things, and while that is unambiguously better than being forced to do them by violence, that&#x27;s subtly distinct from &quot;wanting&quot; them.<p>There are also varied spectra of wants: on some level, I want to pursue self-actualization goals that are years away. On another level, I want to step out of the rat race and read a good book. On yet another level, I want to watch TV, eat candy, and click a button that delivers a dopamine reward directly to my brain. These wants are frequently in conflict, and capitalism is more incentivized (or capable) to satisfy some of those than others. (I remember a good PG essay about the phenomenon of short wants vs. long wants, but I can&#x27;t find it; neighboring ideas are found in <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulgraham.com&#x2F;addiction.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulgraham.com&#x2F;addiction.html</a> and <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulgraham.com&#x2F;distraction.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulgraham.com&#x2F;distraction.html</a>)<p>I don&#x27;t think markets are a bad technology, any more than any other technology. But the paperclip analogy fits: people do want paperclips, but they also want a variety of other things that aren&#x27;t paperclips. If we create social machines that optimize some wants over others, a plethora of human needs and desires may be drastically under-supplied as an unintended side effect.