"In a free society, revenue is the measure of value a given entity adds to society." This statement in my minds suggests that in a free society where individuals, businesses, etc. are able to enter into agreements freely without force, coercion, market manipulation, etc. that money exchanged, revenue earned is a great (not the only) measure of value or of 'good' that an entity provides to society. For example, say you compare a Farmer and an NFL Football Player. The farmer makes 200,000 per year, and the football player makes 2,000,000 per year. Some might argue that the farmer 'should make more' because the farmer provides something much more valuable than the football player. However, if following the quote above, you'd come to a much different conclusion. Since consumers are able to freely make a decision on which to consume, which not to, how much they're willing to pay, etc. the revenue that each individual receives is already a much more efficient measure of the value these individuals provide to society than any other model that can be drawn up. In this case - The farmer plays a very important role in society... producing food the citizenry needs to survive, he produces meals for people which society is willing to pay $20.00 for per day. $20.00/day times 1,000 citizens times 10 days. He can feed 1,000 citizens for 10 days. The football player on the other hand produces a service (entertainment) which is valued at significantly less per citizen. The average citizen values (is willing to pay $0.10) his entertainment at ~$0.10 per game. $0.10 per game times 10 games times 2,000,000 viewers. However, since many more people watch the game and gain entertainment from it than could have possibly been fed, the football player actually produces 10x the value (and consequently revenue) as the farmer. Does this essentially describe this how the free market system works? Is the free market the best and most efficient method to place value on societal contributions? Do you agree or disagree with the statement in question? Why? How does government manipulation of the free market through subsidies, excess regulations, etc. affect this model? What are the political ramifications depending on what your position is? Discuss. Now, if a person believes in this type of thing, is that idea compatible with disdain for the self-made rich? Does it speak at all to the idea that the rich can only become rich on the back of the poor? (Oppressor vs. victim kind of mentality?) Is this how the system in America works today? Obviously supply/demand plays a role in determining the consumers valuation of the good/service... Obviously the real world is much more complex, so where does the variability come in and how does it affect the result? What are the alternatives?