I seriously doubt that. There might be some activities of a CEO that a customer buying a product of the company led by said CEO might benefit from, but a CEOs activities are exclusively to the benefit of said CEO. Not to the benefit of the company, not to the benefit of the shareholders and for sure not for the benefit of the customers. (Any benefit these groups might incur are accidental).
Customers buy cheap products because they have no means of differentiate between commodity products, except for the price. That's why they buy cheap stuff.
If we had any kind of transparent measure to actually be able to differentiate between commodity products (other than just the self-aggrandizing promotion and advertising), say; some standardized information about i.e. lifespan of a product, invested energy, carbon emissions, then there might be actually be a choice for the customers. But most industries fight tooth-and-nail against such labels, as can be witnessed i.e. the food industry.
The whole point of capitalism is to align the self-interest of people with benefiting society. The CEO might not set out to help people, but if people voluntarily buy those products then the CEO is helping society.
> Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
I don't know why you get downvoted. You made a silly argument but it's not as if that's a reason to downvote anybody.
That private ownership of the means of production means that it is yours. People generally want to have better stuff. When you improve that means of production due to your self-interest then everybody else also benefits from it, because now you can produce something better or for a lower cost. It also tells others that it's possible to improve those means of production.
I also don't agree with your premise that capitalism aligns people's self-interest with society's interests. Let's take a monopoly for example; getting into a monopoly position might be in the interest of an individual actor in a capitalistic market, but that's not in society's interests, not at at all. Furthermore capitalism tends to favor enterprises that manage to externalize as many costs as possible, primarily to the detriment of society which the has to socialize these costs, whereas the profit is privatized.
The primary beneficiaries of this military consumption are the corporations that supply the goods and services that the military pays for (with public money), but the gains made by those corporations go into a relatively few pockets.
Another example is big agriculture corporations. In the US, for decades there have been subsidies paid to corn "farmers" (now big corps), to the extent that the businesses had to find ways to use corn beyond just food. Thus came corn syrup, ethanol (https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_case_against_ethanol_bad_...) and more.
Beneficiaries of this, again, are a few people. Meanwhile, land is burned out (soil quality reduced to worthless), plus all the infrastructure and energy use related to operating large scale farms.
If I had all day to spend, I could probably find a dozen other examples.
This has nothing to do with cheap food for poor people; and after all, the research shows that the cheap food is the unhealthiest.
Wait, wait even better - making everything more expensive for everyone is going to somehow disproportionately benefit those who have less over those who have more? I've little doubt the absurdity of taxing ourselves to prosperity certainly sounds perfectly reasonable to people who stand to benefit from it, along with their parasitic electorate.
This is why climate change quackery keeps falling short - it's statist propaganda brought to you for the same people who created all current imbalance by the people aspiring to be their next crony beneficiaries
Why do you consider the primary beneficiaries of an activity that consumes resources the ones who supply the resources? Surely, the beneficiaries from the activity itself are the primary beneficiaries. Or to put this into context: the primary beneficiaries of the military are the people and trade that the military protects. The primary beneficiary from the military's use of helmets aren't helmet manufacturers, but rather the soldiers using the helmets.
>Another example is big agriculture corporations. In the US, for decades there have been subsidies paid to corn "farmers" (now big corps), to the extent that the businesses had to find ways to use corn beyond just food.
And cheap food benefits nobody? I would imagine that if the food they produce is so cheap that they have to find other avenues of using it that this would benefit people who have trouble affording food.
>This has nothing to do with cheap food for poor people;
It has everything to do with cheap food and goods. Without these economies of scale a chicken sandwich would cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars. If you had to gather all of the ingredients yourself then it would be incredibly expensive.
>and after all, the research shows that the cheap food is the unhealthiest.
I wouldn't call potatoes and rice the unhealthiest foods. Nowadays we consider some foods unhealthy because they are so plentiful - because that are cheap. People tend to overindulge in them which makes them "unhealthy". Most of the time it's a question of how much is consumed.
.. but throws away far more, and the CO2 emissions and land area produced are not the same for all calories.