The problem is that I'm doing philosophy here, not economics. If you can get an economist to lay bare not just the axioms that feature in the economist's possibly naive self-image of what she's doing, but her philosophical assumptions, then I could go to work on them. Until then, I'm afraid I'll have to leave it for the reader to judge the relevance of my criticisms.

For instance, that wiki page on search theory doesn't include the words "rational," "utility," or "happiness." So it only presupposes the basic, philosophical contents that I'm questioning.

When it says, "search theory studies an individual's optimal strategy when choosing from a series of potential opportunities of random quality," my question would be about the standards of optimality. That's where the question of egoism or of instrumental rationality would enter the picture. And is capitalism supposed to be optimal in some related respect?

But again, that's all only presupposed in the literature you're immersed in, because you're an economic specialist. So we've got to keep in mind the level at which philosophy operates.