No, I don't think that stepping back and saying "this allocation of resources stinks" is myopic. Not unless you have so much faith in our resource allocation system that you excuse it from the need to justify itself.

In fact, I think it's myopic to assume that a business has justified its existence solely on the basis that it has experienced success on the market. A method to make a well-to-do individual or company even more well-to-do, despite a 2x or 10x cost to the competition or to society, is a winning business proposition. "Create the problem, sell the cure" is a valid business model. Feeding the poor is not. Like most of us here, I believe that in total the market is a force for good, but let's please not pretend that market forces are self-justifying or beyond reproach. In an adversarial system, the solution to one person's "real problem" can be a real monster to the rest of us. We have to make the good/evil call on our own.

Most of us are familiar with the game-theoretic concept of Nash Equilibrium and how, with the right rules, you can drive a local optimization scheme* to a globally anti-optimal outcome (i.e. the prisoner's dilemma). Since our economy runs on a local optimization scheme, it's entirely reasonable to wonder if there are any market segments where the Nash Equilibrium is particularly objectionable.

The marketing industry is a great example. I've heard it claimed that its purpose in society is to convey information to the consumer. But that's not how it makes money. It makes money by attracting customers, and indeed the ads that you and I see every day are so acutely tuned to this goal, to the near total exclusion of all others, that I doubt there are many of us who believe that watching ads helps the average person make better business decisions.

"Captain Morgan has the best brand of rum!" and "Dawny makes the softest tissues" are not messages that are of any use to society. Just the opposite -- they're probably false or, at best, misleading. Both customers and manufacturers would benefit from cutting the advertisers out of the equation. But they can't, because that's not a Nash equilibrium, and so the arms race continues. It's not as expensive as the actual wars we are fighting, but it's not too far off either.

Look, you're right that the whole "all industry does is churn out socially worthless CRUD apps" criticism is unfair. Industry has solved (and will solve) an enormous number of practical problems. But it's not myopic to notice when a business empire is built on a strategy of dubious social value or to notice when the market is systematically undervaluing some kind of human activity. Those things happen, and it's reasonable to complain when a petty/artificial "real problem" gets enshrined while the most glaring "real problems" get swept under the rug.

The scientific and humane startups you mentioned sound like steps in the right direction. I just hope that they experience a nonzero success rate. Market forces have a long and ignominious history of serving those sectors poorly. I don't have any great answers (apart from the obvious "don't defund science or social nets"), but the only way we can hope to find better options is by identifying what's wasteful, calling it that, and trying to figure out new ways to address the problem.

* While I sincerely apologize to any game theorists who object to my inaccurate terminology, I must point out that it was you guys who decided to call this kind of optimization "greedy."