i think the basic logic of how to analyze some of these points can be found by watching the numerous Milton Friedman videos i previously linked itt, or some of it might be from Hazlitt.
and medic, i'm an amateur at this, and i'll probably get some of this wrong, so bear with me. let's see if i actually understand this stuff or if i'm just bs'ing?
While some people may seriously disagree with me here, a lot of my friends share this same viewpoint with me. The model of the corporation is actually what's inevitably causing an economy to fail. Corporations have an obligation to make profits, that's their sole purpose. Stockholder fiduciary duty trumps everything else, and everything a corporation does essentially returns to this point. Even when a company contributes to charity or does something of that nature, it actually has a +EV through positive public relations.
What inevitably happens is the company looks for the cheapest way to provide their goods or services, while constantly increasing the costs. You as a worker don't benefit from the increasing profit margins.
i'm going to cut it off here for the first point. you're arguing that the pursuit of greater profit margins cause services to degenerate over time. basically, "profits are bad." but i don't see the point of demonizing corporations here, so i'll just generalize to all for-profit businesses.
this is a fallacy because it sees only the current winners but ignores the entire business universe over history. businesses have profit, but businesses also have losses. too many losses, and the business dies. there very few companies that have been around for long periods of time. most (if not all) businesses go bust eventually given a long enough timeline. Hazlitt concluded that if we add up all the losses into the picture, businesses actually lose money overall.
so when the deck is stacked against them, why would someone ever start a business? profit is the incentive and lifeblood of a company. sometimes profits are good, sometimes not so good. but nothing is static. the profits stop at some point, and the business dies.
the only thing that is static in this market is this desire for profits and the activity created in the economy as a result--hiring, wages, technological innovations, efficient use of finite resources. all with no central planning.
assuming no government-sponsored monopoly structure, whenever profits are great, the word gets out. other people want in on the action. this competition is what drives costs down and services up in the end. as the edge in the game gets whittled down to nothing and the end product eventually becomes nothing more than a commodity, the only thing left to offer is service, and when that goes down too far, the business dies. it happens all the time, to businesses of all sizes.
this last part is crucial and can be taken further, but i'm gonna pull a Sneakers on ya for now.
and i'm going to leave the rest of the post for someone else or another time since it's more about the class system and social mobility in our society and doesn't detract, but rather supports a for-profit system imo (in short, would you rather live under communism? it's the best of the worst.).