I'm listening to this book talk from a progressive.
One thing that I find rather irritating about it is how, in parts, he refers to working in jobs that have a higher purpose, or a higher morality, than working for money.
The way capitalism works, when there is no government interference, is that the people who provide others with goods and services get rewarded with certificates of performance (money), with which they can reward others for their service.
If I cook ten meals and am rewarded with 200 certificates of performance, then haven't I done more good than someone who has only cooked one meal for twenty certificates of performance?
In this example, haven't I done more good?
Would I be more evil becasue I am richer?
Even if I only served becasue of my personal greed for more money and my own self interest, haven't I served more?
Even if you don't think that they are moral, Wal-mart does more good than all the non-profit groups in the world do. Wal-mart does not waste resources. A non-profit that gives more than is takes in is wasting resources. Wal-mart's low prices means that more people can have more food and clothing then they could at higher prices. This efficient and makes people richer which increases their standard of living.
Companies like Solyndra and Fisker (even if they are "green" and morally superior to evil capitalists) are wasting resources. They waste raw materials and they waste the labor and effort of their employees.
In a capitalistic world, without government interference, then person who serves the most receives the most.
The basics of economics are really very simple. Anyone can understand them. There is even an aptly titled book which will explain economics without complex formulas or graphs or charts.
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell