fair enough. might look into it further. although you seem to know quite a bit about it, wouldn't mind shooting me a quick paragraph or two would you?
While there's no possible way to outline the bulk of evolutionary theory in any sort of meaningful way in a paragraph, at a fundamental level, what you are doing is taking a desired outcome (market forces/economics/amassing wealth equates to natural selection) and trying to fit a theory to it rather than starting with a hypothesis and testing it under the framework of a previously developed theory.
Evolutionary advantages are directly and explicitly correlated with increased reproductive output. While the hypothesis of wealth = selective advantage is a logically reasonable test hypothesis, a simple comparison of population growth rates and GDP's contradicts the idea as it shows that on a global scale reproductive output is negatively correlated with wealth. While this doesn't rule out the role of evolutionary drivers in the human instinct to become wealthy, it does mean that the system is far more complex than market forces = natural selection.
Due to the large number of selective strategies and scales of selection in concert with the dynamic nature of environmental parameters, there's often more than one successful strategy and the most obvious is often not the best or even advantageous at all. E.g. say mate selection in monkeys is based on being the biggest, suggesting being bigger = better, however being the biggest might make you a target for predators and unable to climb trees to get food, so the most obvious evolutionary strategy is actually a poor one.
In the present example it simply means that becoming the richest may not necessarily be the most successful evolutionary strategy and you can't necessarily justify the detrimental effects of certain economic behavior on other individuals/populations by calling it natural selection.
