I mean, sure, you can always not talk about or suggest them, but so much of what you’re dealing with day to day is probably from some big business. Also I am aware of the concept of universal basic income, but I’ve not really seen it framed/discussed from this sort of perspective, which imo at least is morbidly funnier.
At any rate, capitalists made this market where time’s money and ya always gotta be hustling, so if they think they’re owed free word o’ mouth, well, who’s all entitled then, eh?
For what it’s worth I generally agree with you, the proposition is to prod at where one might go if one were to take the capitalist mindset to a logical extreme. It’s not so much that someone might, as it is that an already profitable big business might. Nevertheless, the exasperation you’re expressing here, I share, and I’ve sort of inverted what you ask here out of dismay at how one’s supposed to go about things without serving to further help some big business’ profits.
Obviously the better and more practical solution is to leverage governments to break up pseudo-monopolies, regulate and tax businesses, and support unionization in every industry. However, this sort of twisted scenario I’m asking about here? That, to me, seems like the bizarre sort of logic that a staunch, honest capitalist would prefer instead despite it being to the detriment of society.
Just caught this in your other reply and decided to address this here. While this is possible, it also isn’t how the world actually works that this is consistently the case, and it is in those inconsistencies of value production that influence the mindset of others, don’t you think? Supposing that it is strictly a zero sum game is wrong, but supposing that wealth accrual isn’t sometimes at the cost of others is also wrong, I think it may be reasonable to say.
Wealth accrual often creates economic inequality, and in turn while the original action may not directly make people poorer, it can cost them in other ways of which I imagine we may all be too familiar.