Lotsa stuff to unpack in the thread. But let's start with the first question:
Should components and equipment get lighter, cost less, or add capabilities. Not just vacc suits as an example, but all technology?
In some cases, yes. But I don't think it's necessarily a universalism. Some components do get more capabilities, but they also may get heavier or cost more. Think of TVs. When flat screens first came out they had amazing capabilities and they were lighter and smaller than their CRT equivalents. But they were also much more expensive since they were new and all the sunk costs of the technology had yet to be paid off. Today they are bigger, cheaper, but not really lighter. Newer versions are same size, weight, with enhanced (4k, or 8k) capabilities and also more expensive.
It's a logical fallacy to assign the lighter, cheaper, better idea to everything because its so rarely true. As we continue to push the envelope of technology you (usually) ONLY get to choose lighter and better, but NOT cheaper. It's the same mantra for pretty much everything - so very rare that you can get all three simultaneously.
The other arguments, well, geez, there are literally books and books and books and even more papers and nearly uncountable op-ed's on these topics. People say corporations are bad, yet they are a necessary evil in a world that demands large quantities of cheap goods. Prior to the creation of the corporation a company was owned by a singular person, or persons. Raising capital was much more difficult, and companies were tied to the personal fortunes and actions of their owner(s). Many events could see individual companies crash, as could changes in social standings or whisper campaigns against the owners. At the beginning of the 16th century we saw the nascent rise of corporations with the charter of the British East India company. And, over time, the concept evolved and morphed until they have become what they are today. Still necessary, and often, still evil, or at least uncaring. But let's be honest about this - it's not the corporate structure itself that is evil, it's the people who make the choices for how that company is to be run. Essentially it frees people to be evil and say "oh, it's the company". Corporations aren't evil, people are. Just as companies can be indifferent, so, too, can people.
People often decry the "losses" incurred moving to big companies, that things lose their uniqueness, or their individuality or things like that - and they do. But standardization also allows for massive spreading of costs that lower barriers, increase trade and makes highly industrialized societies possible. I happen to like standardized screws, tools, parts, etc when working on my car. "Unique" things that I can only go to one manufacturer for increases my costs for no reason other than profits for them and screwing of me. We are seeing some of the same happening with software laws making it either impossible and/or illegal to do your own work on products you own because companies are trying to shield themselves behind laws to limit competition and access. Personally I think that's wrong. There's a LOT of changes that SHOULD be done in the software arena to make things more even - companies hiding behind software bugs and deploying crapware legally without any sort of liability is wrong when other manufacturers cannot do the same.
Anyways, getting off on a tangent here. The Ops question is valid, but there is no proven universalism to make it true for all things all the time.
