I didn't miss the point, I disagree with the point. It's (economics is) not bad at distributing wealth, it's bad at distributing wealth in a way that seems fair to those who don't end up with any.
My issue is with the idea that it is fair for someone who does less than me (as determined by the consensus estimate of our contribution), to get more than me. this is just a feeble attempt at making people feel guilty about making decisions about benefitting themselves when the result manifests change for others. It's a socialist's argument about the definition of morality.
And by the way, ask any socialist what constitutes an "unjust society" and you should get a better idea of what a slippery slope you're on when you take merit out of the compensation equation. Of those high paid laborers who lose their jobs, the best will get better jobs, and be much better off because they'll also get the benefit of lower prices. The worst of them will go on to complain about the immoral fat cats, and live off public assistance.
I did a poor job of making my point. I am not advocating socialism but I agree with the author that "economics" i.e. the management of the: DJIA, S&P, GDP and the rest of the top level indicators has taken on the aspects of a religion. From this comes Reese's (accurate) statement that capitalism should properly considered amoral It is intrinsically neither good nor evil.
The economy is nothing more than the by product of people going about their lives but it has been elevated to a point where we as individuals are close to becoming nothing more than an economic unit. In "Brave New World" the lower classes were constantly propagandized with the slogan "Work - Earn - Buy".
Recall the few months post 9/11. There was a blitz of government Public Service Announcements and private commercials urging citizens to get out there and spend money.
The message translated to: "Win the war on terror by buying some Chinese consumer goods at Walmart".
Don't know about you, but that bothered me.
Regards
J.R.