Paul Graham's essay about how addressing economic inequalities will only end up hurting entrepreneurs has already been bisected, dissected, and cross-shredded more ways than I have fingers to count on. But this particular line is a winner:
You end up going to absurd lengths to rationalize mediocre ideas because they happen to make tons of money instead of questioning the legitimacy of a system that confers so much value on to stupid things. To stay consistent, you have to defend the logic that the creepy women who founded Peeple contribute more value to society than literally thousands of 4th grade teachers.
Emph mine. We don't, by and large, question the legitimacy of conferring value on stupid things that happen to be money-makers. And by "stupid" I don't mean "frivolous", I mean "harmful to society generally". The problem with that kind of questioning is that it leads us to uncomfortable places — like, say, the idea that the problem with leaving optimizations of society to the market is that the market doesn't optimize for human beings, but wealth.
The other problem is that we assume any rocking of the boat is going to be a net negative: here's your omelet, too bad about all those broken eggs, right? We're not in the habit of thinking about this problem in terms other than a dichotomy between death by market forces and death by revolution.