Wow, this is completely wrong. The idea that "there is always a cost for doing something" is trotted out so often, and almost every time, there's ignorance of

Wow, this is completely wrong. The idea that "there is always a cost for doing something" is trotted out so often, and almost every time, there's ignorance of the fact that the intent is for the benefit to be higher than the cost. Enforcing contracts has a "cost", maintaining a police and legal system has a "cost", a road/highway system has a cost, maintaining a currency has a cost, regulating food so there's no arsenic in it has a cost, etc etc etc. The entropy and friction created by these things are considered to be far below the benefits to economic efficiency (lowering barriers to trade, reducing non-productive expenditure on security, etc). Saying that introducing friction into an economy causes the world to collapse and completely ignoring the potential for economic gains in efficiency is beyond ludicrous. I may be misreading that last sentence, but luckily the other possible interpretation is equally ludicrous. The idea that corporations paying their consumers who then buy their goods will cause the world to collapse is even more ridiculous than the previous claim. How do you think the economy functions exactly? The wages that employers pay to their employees ARE the money they use to buy products from employers (whether theirs or someone else's). "Any college economics textbook" can tell you this. In fact, if you partition each person's wages into subsistence wages (i.e. basic income) and "extra" wages, corporations are already doing exactly what you're claiming will cause the world to collapse. The only difference is that right now it's being done horribly inefficiently, and the gaps in coverage (unemployed people) have an even more inefficient system servicing them, welfare.