You are simply wrong, you are confusing the stockmarket with the...

You are simply wrong, you are confusing the stockmarket with the broader economy and all the forces working in it which you think end up meaning investing in general is a zero sum game.

If the amount of arable land is limited then so too may the number of cows that it can support.
If the milk from those cows also goes to overseas markets because their consumers can now afford overseas products then the milk producers here may well sell a good portion of their produce overseas and leave less for here so the domestic market pays more than it otherwise might.
Do you see right there, even though farming may be a lot more efficient today, if there are more markets to sell into then you and I may not get the full benefits of that efficiency even if the farmer does.
The day they can make milk in labs in bulk without cows, that day the price will fall to what you think it should be, but until then the natural resources needed to make milk limit the extent the cost can be pushed down along with the markets there are to sell too. And face it, the chinese consumer pays well for Aussie foodstuffs as it has a very good reputation and a billion chinese will easily outspend 25 million aussies every single time.

You make broadbrush statements and apply then to specific parts of the economy. I put it to you that it is not the best way of thinking or analyzing things. In other words it seems you think the stockmarket should cater for all the ills of society, it can't and never will.

I'll say it again, I don't care what you think about the rest of the economy or society as a whole but the stockmarket (as in shares) IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. (options, as in put and call options, now they ARE a zero sum game).