You&#x27;re saying that a fundamental property of prosperity is a tendency for underconsumption? That capitalism therefore must mitigate it? So then, all your grievances are related to alleged cases of conspicuous consumption that are contrived by companies in response to a satiated, underconsuming populace.<p>I&#x27;m unsure of what &quot;privatizing public spaces for socialization&quot; is supposed to mean, or why it would be bad. After all, a private property owner may extend nonpossessory or usufructory rights to usage of their land, which would make it perfectly viable for social gatherings without being necessarily more exclusionary than a commons or public ownership. The promotion of the nuclear family model is an organic result of prosperity, which enables its existence to thrive. Thus, it&#x27;s a social tendency first and then absorbed by industry. Same with beauty standards. I also fail to see how &quot;promoting exotic vacations and recreational activities&quot; is bad.<p>Your last sentence is confusing. Money is special because it is a good that, particularly fiat money, is almost entirely defined by exchange value over use value, and is the unit at which all other goods are priced relative to. Where are you drawing the association with &quot;perfect markets,&quot; or whether markets would even need to be perfect?