> Rarely can a society coordinate strongly enough to have its collective will affect the market on purpose (if it could, soccer players and movie stars wouldn't

> Rarely can a society coordinate strongly enough to have its collective will affect the market on purpose (if it could, soccer players and movie stars wouldn't be making that much money). This is just wrong. Soccer players, movie stars, and the organizations that front them make money based upon ticket sales. If you don't want them to make as much money you don't buy the ticket. Buying the ticket is making a choice to give them that money. The problem is that it is easy for people to dissociate from the choices that they make with their purchasing. Not everyone is this deluded. Some people boycott things they disagree with. What you are arguing is that mechanisms like boycott, i.e., voting with your dollars don't always work in the sense of producing outcomes that an observer might consider better for everyone. The same case could be made about democracy for exactly the same reasons. That is a different argument than the one outlined here, that markets do not represent the direct choice of their participants. They certainly do, even when the participants refuse to acknowledge that they are making those choices.