> If you consider the hens in the analogy to be companies (rather than people) I think it holds.

If you consider a fern to be an alligator then it's an example of a deadly reptile.

> We select for companies that can outcompete other companies rather than ones that contribute the most to the system.

I think that the whole point of our system is to ensure that firms which outcompete other firms are the ones which contribute the most total value to the system. Where this isn;t the case (e.g. as with the effects of mass advertising, monopolies &c.) it's a bug, not a feature — and should be adjusted for.

I've played a minor support role in numerous fraud and antitrust lawsuits. Although experts and counsel said a great deal about economic and social welfare, the key evidence involved what people intended and planned (based on documents, email, etc) and what they did (based on business records).

Determining which firms "contribute the most total value to the system" is just too hard to be a useful strategy.

Translating that back to the workplace, I'm more inclined to agree with TFA.

> Determining which firms "contribute the most total value to the system" is just too hard to be a useful strategy.

Yes, it is — which is why we have a free market instead of a central authority trying to determine who contributes the most. Wisdom of crowds & all that.