Oh, sorry. I think the confusion is coming from the ambiguity of the word "should." When I said "should" I meant "logically should," not "morally should." I wa

Oh, sorry. I think the confusion is coming from the ambiguity of the word "should." When I said "should" I meant "logically should," not "morally should." I wasn't wishing for a world where this is true but rather describing our current world where this is already true. Like, "Hitting a lightbulb with a hammer should cause the bulb to break." It might help to have a more fleshed out example. Imagine a system where there are only two ways to buy my book. You can either buy it new directly from my website or buy it used on eBay. I sell it on my website for $60, but the current price for a used copy on eBay is $30. Suppose 100 buyers decide to start buying used copies on eBay. eBay sellers increase the price from $30 to $50 to match the increased demand. I, the author, still receive $0 on every sale of the used copy, so I don't see any new money directly. But there are buyers who are open to either a used copy or a new copy, depending on the price. As the price of used copies approaches the price of new copies, more buyers will choose to purchase new directly from me rather than from eBay. Even though the 100 new eBay buyers didn't benefit me directly as the author, it indirectly benefitted me by pushing up the used price and influencing other buyers to purchase the new copy instead of the used copy.