I disagree fundamentally:
Money is not “successful under current conditions in most countries”. Money is the name we give to our better units of value, in general. Even in a Utopian egalitarian society, as long as there are ways to communicate and transfer value, there would be “money” (_that_ would be money), and that “money” would be “successful”.
> So what would “superior” mean to you?
I care about (minimising) suffering above anything else. Well-being is a good proxy for that. And economic output is a good proxy for well-being.
I'm not saying economic growth is all that matters. But GDP per capita is at least concrete and measurable.
Alternative metrics should be well-defined and measurable, too. Otherwise they're not better than economic metrics.
“Textile workers” who are able to “give up their jobs” are, by your own definition, not slaves. The fact that they would do even worse if they decided to resign is unfortunate, but poverty is the natural state of things, and even so it has been declining.
See it this way: would they be better off if that textile industry didn't exist in the first place?
