I get the logic of the economy driven by business model but has it ever been played out in such a way that the common good are benefited?
I think the underlying fallacy is to assume that what you know about the world contains the outline of what there is to know. This is likely to be built into our brains. I'm reminded of the socialist agenda as presented in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair: It made perfect sense within the framework known to the socialists of the time, but is inconsistent with reality as it actually developed. Their error was to assume that because some kinds of change had not happened, they could not happen -- from election reform to household dishwashers.
The same fallacy is seen in the arguments of very bright anti-theological scientists (such as Richard Dawkins or Steven Hawking) who argue that postulating God is not required within the context of their own theories. That's true enough, but the postulates which they do use may be as off base as was the aether for transmission of light and Platonic solids for defining planetary orbits, as pointed out by Silk in a recent review of Hawking's book.
I see the same thing in arguments presented by amateurs against global warming. What possesses a CPA or an IT person to explain away 40 years of careful scientific data with the impressions they've collected from their personal experience? ("I'm freezing my butt off this morning," said one IT acquaintance to explain why the average temperature of the entire planet could not possibly be 0.5°F warmer than in the past.) It the fallacious assumption that his experience encompasses the totality of reality.
Last Tuesday, I presented Dylan with the question, "If you meet a person named Dylan, how old is he?" He picked (correctly) the answer "0 to 20 years", but his reason was "because that's what I am". The correct reason is that Dylan has only been a popular name for that period of time. Again, the fallacy is to assume that personal knowledge covers the full range of knowledge. ("I don't know any other Dylans.")
Now you ask quite legitimately whether the business-based economic models have ever been applied in ways that benefited the common good. I think probably not. (Leave aside the question of a clear definition of "common good" for the moment.) Large majorities of Americans may have disagreed at certain periods, even so recently as the 1990s, and their opinions would have been based on the evidence of their own, still personal, experience at the time. After all, the economy gave evidence of responding to the predictions of that model: business was being given a free hand and the economy was booming. I felt that they were deluding each other, and later I felt vindicated, unhappily, when the bubble burst.
Following the thread of this essay, let's translate my opinion into the assertion that the majority's economic model was incomplete, that it was flawed by not accounting for sufficient breadth of actual reality. Is it not possible that the business model of the economy could be expanded to include additional risks which have been previously ignored, and to account for additional benefits which have not been adequately tracked?
An example of how this expansion can occur may be found in the modern accounting of the economic effects of worker safety, which has profoundly changed such businesses as construction. With an improved tracking of costs, the old attitude of indifference to injury and death was no longer tolerable.