You understand how the economy as an aggregated whole behaves. What you're ignoring -- intentionally or not -- is the other face of economics, the hairy & ugly

You understand how the economy as an aggregated whole behaves. What you're ignoring -- intentionally or not -- is the other face of economics, the hairy & ugly one, distribution. The way that any given person experiences the economy is a product of prosperity (as you put it) and distribution. In this day and age the volatility in distribution reliably dwarfs trends in overall prosperity. There are a large number of individuals who will be hurt by this (or any other) shift many orders of magnitude more than they will be helped. You invoke a collectivist argument to defend these groups' suffering on the basis that it will benefit the whole according to the economic dogma you hold dear. Fair enough. You might even be right. Even if one were to assume that you are, however, why does it follow that those involved should be happy with their fate as a stepping stone for society? That their complaints are nothing but "childish whining"? Furthermore, the fact that an action creates winners and losers is far less open to interpretation than its ultimate connection to the progression (or regression) of society. If you substitute faith in one system for faith in another then the same argument you made earlier has been made in a million other contexts to defend acts that you would consider unconscionable. In this context "It's for the best, honest!" is a weak argument regardless of how convinced you are that your model of ultimate benefit/detriment to society is correct.