That's why I said I could go on about why it's not perfect. I admit there's downsides, but I still view it as a great thing on net, due to the general tendency to align incentives with value provision.

It's not just "not perfect", it's extremely flawed. You didn't "go on" at all about its flaws or failures at measuring merit, and only provided a toy example of a superfluous mega-rich celebrity deserving his wealth while ignoring Hollywood's underhanded exploitation and accounting issues.

Because something is "not perfect" or "extremely flawed" doesn't mean there is a better thing out there.

Something can be "extremely flawed" and also be the best option available, such as in this case.

You have to make a case for it that isn't circular first.

The idea that there should not be any democratic input on the economy seems quite unsupported so far.

How do you know there’s no better alternative out there? I don’t see anyone trying to find one.

The system is heavily corrupt. The premise that it is mostly working with some flaws itself is heavily flawed.