That “critique” doesn’t make any sense. Are people with more money able to buy more products as well as higher quality products? Yes. So? What’s wrong with that? That is what is valued the most by people. How does a free market not work when income isn’t equally distributed?
This entire “critique” is a joke.
Point out that although the purchasing power of a millionaire greatly exceeds that of an average consumer, the total purchasing power of average consumers greatly exceeds the total purchasing power of millionaires. The business that caters to the average consumer will fare better than the one that caters to millionaires.
I would point out to them things like the iPhone. When the iPhone first came out it was prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of people, because it was expensive to make - production and R&D costs were high. Once the high demand for the iPhone became apparent, Apple found ways to streamline production, refine the design, and take advantage of economies of scale.
An iPhone is now half the price it was when it was launched, allowing people with less purchasing power to buy it. It’s important to note that it was precisely those people who have more purchasing power (or at least more disposable income) who were willing to pay a premium for this new product that gave Apple the green light to ramp-up production and become more efficient. Of course, Apple still could sell a lot of iPhones at the premium price, but they would rather sell three times as many units at half the price. The case of Henry Ford and the first automobiles is another classic example of this dynamic.
It should be obvious that in a free mareket economy, the wealthy man is considered wealthy just because goods like bread, milk, shoes, etc.. are affordable by the “poor”. The wealthier man can buy an iPhone just because the poor man can afford a standard phone(with camera). This extra purchasing power over the poorer man is what makes him wealthier.
The Socialist imagines an economy with no goods being produced for the common man because the “wealthy” buys up all the resources. But how can he be wealthy if bread is not produced to the masses and is only say 99 cents a loaf. How can he then purchase the common man as a “worker” if he cannot pay him a wage that will even buy him bread. All the Gold in the world in the possesion of the “wealthy” man will be worthless. This “wealthy” man is not wealthy then, he is as poor as the common man.
The socialist is confusing the Capitalistic economy with a Slave economy.
This claim also ignores the complexity of each consumer regarding their consumption preferances. Individuals use their money for various different tangible and intangible goods and services provided within the market economy. Everyone holds a different spending position in his or her life. It’s erroneous to think everyone needs similar purchasing power if everybody doesn’t operate with their consumption preferances, productivity, and certain needs.