That feels optimistic. This kind of naive free market ideology seems to rarely manifest in lower prices.

Sorry if this is somewhat pedantic, but I believe that only US companies (and possibly only Delaware corporations?) are bound by the requirement to maximize shareholder value and then only by case law rather than statue. Other jurisdictions allow the directors more discretion, or place more weight on the company's constitution/charter.

That’s not a good summary of capitalism at all because you omit the part where interests of sellers and buyers align. Which is precisely what has made capitalism successful.

Profit growth is based primarily on offering the product that best matches the consumer wish at the lowest price, and production cost possible. That benefits both the buyer and the seller. If the buyer does not care about product quality, then you will not have any company producing quality products.

The market is just a reflection of that dinámica. And in the real world we can easily observed that: Many market niches are dominated by quality products (outdoor and safety gear, professional and industrial tools…) while others tend to be dominated by non-quality (low end fashion, toys).

And that result is not imposed by profit growth but by the average consumer preference.

You can of course disagree with those consumer preferences and don’t buy low quality products, that’s why you most probably also find high products in any market niche.

But you cannot blame companies for that. What they sell is just the result of the aggregated buyers preferences and the result of free market decisions.

Well, keep in mind students at UCLA at 1967 were probably among the most wealthy in the country. A lot more average people at UCLA nowadays. Of course being financially well off wouldn't be the most important thing if you were already financially well off.

I wonder what would be the proportion of answers between different society economic levels.

What we know so far though is that many of the traditional values were bound to the old society structures, based on the traditional family.

The advent of the sexual revolution, brought by the contraception pill, completely obliterated those structures, changing the family paradigm since then. Only accentuated in the last decade by social media and the change in the sexual marketplace due to dating apps.

Probably today many young people would just prioritize reputation (eg followers) over wealth and life philosophy. As that seems to be the trend that dictates the sexual marketplace dinámics.

The paradox is that the general principles of the market work, but the market is invisibly dysfunctional in its details.

It is generally true that higher income jobs are allocated to higher productivity workers, but it does not follow that high incomes imply high productivity and vice versa for low incomes.

If you combine the above with a disequilibrium market where supply of labor exceeds the demand for labor, then from a naive perspective it would appear as if the unemployed would deserve their unemployment.

After all, the most productive members are all employed and rewarded for their efforts. The unemployed are just lazy (voluntarily unemployed) and incompetent (society is better off without them). Any form of punishment is seen as justified and not some structural failing of the system.

The problem is that if there is a labor market disequilibrium, there will always be unemployed people and even if you think the productivity ranking is a good thing, it just means that if one of the "lazy" people suddenly becomes "hard working", they will just take the place of someone else and nothing has changed other than that the standard for laziness has risen.

Even if people notice that the system is fundamentally broken, they realize that individually, they are either a beneficiary of the system and therefore don't see a reason to change it or they don't have the ability to change the system and rather focus on taking someone else's place.

This will result in an artificial Darwinian rat race where people see each other as competitors to defeat.

This is my explanation for why immigrants make a good scapegoat even though immigration doesn't affect the rules of the game at all.

Here is an analogy via a game of musical chairs. There is the perception that more immigrants means more players competing for chairs. This is a naive interpretation that looks obvious. What is being forgotten is that each player is bringing a new chair and the number of missing chairs is a percentage of the number of players. The truth is that having more immigrants means you can take their chair away for yourself. So immigration is not causative here. The problem is that there were never enough chairs to begin with no matter how many people are playing the game.