> yes, I believe that you could be different.. most people, most of the time, are not different I dunno, I think a lot of people want money but not at any cost

> yes, I believe that you could be different.. most people, most of the time, are not different I dunno, I think a lot of people want money but not at any cost. To me the problem is that it's so hard to actually invest in line with one's values. Businesses with carbon neutrality goals are mostly just buying into fake carbon offsets, etc. > as if any price is not artificial Certainly increased prices due to actual supply or demand shocks, or increased prices of inputs or labor are different from execs quietly price fixing. Maybe "artificial" isn't the right word to express that difference. > This statement is a tip of an iceburg to economic thinking that sees companies and governments and other groups as having a "life of their own" and significantly and fundamentally changing the trajectory of outcomes. I'm not claiming that institutions behave as just the sum of the behavior of the humans involved. And I'm not seeking an explanation of the behavior of companies or institutions. My point about stuff ultimately being held by people is only that there is a group (one might even call it a "class") of people who benefit from price increases like this, even if they are not directly owners of shares in specific companies. I don't understand your position at all. From what I can tell you think that people who do benefit from harmful behaviors must want those behaviors to continue (I might call this "complicity") but simultaneously to believe that seeking to even describe this group of people is itself harmful. It's almost like you want the moral certainty of saying that rich people are bad, but forestall actual change which might require a lot of work and uncertainty.