There is a line of thinking by many in this thread that if two parties enter into a transaction, and one party has significantly more wealth than the other part

There is a line of thinking by many in this thread that if two parties enter into a transaction, and one party has significantly more wealth than the other party, the party with significantly more wealth is automatically guilty of exploiting the party with less wealth, regardless of how said wealth was accumulated. While this may be the case in a small number of transactions, it forgoes the assumption that one is innocent until proven guilty. It also isn't really a productive line of thought in trying to find a solution...assuming guilt/exploitation by those who are better off than us does not make us any better off.