> You do correctly identify that the current state of markets have locked most agents whose only goal os to make money into Nash equilibrium, where "everyone ha

> You do correctly identify that the current state of markets have locked most agents whose only goal os to make money into Nash equilibrium, where "everyone has to optimize for profits" I have to address this one separately because it is dead wrong. Nobody just optimizes for profit. You can't do that. At least not if you want a business that will survive the test of time and shifting consumer needs and markets. You optimize for exactly what I said: profits and the right value/quality ratio for your customer base. Example: Harbor Freight sells cheap tools. Quite a bit of it is crap. Their audience wants cheap tools. Harbor Freight optimizes for profits within the value/quality ratio their audience demands (or in their case, tolerates). Home Depot does not focus on cheap tools. I think most tools I've seen there are of good quality. They offer tools covering a range of value/quality ratios. You can buy a less or more expensive power drill. In no case does the quality drop down to what you might buy at Harbor Freight. They optimize for profits in the context of what their audience expects for value/quality. The reason one can't just optimize for profits is free market competition. Home Depot can't squeeze profits beyond what, for example, Lowe's might allow them to. They are just a few blocks away and offer tools in similar value/quality ranges. Therefore, Home Depot management can't be greedy and push for nothing but profits. They don't exist in a vacuum. Again, monopolies are a different story. Not part of this discussions except to say that it is highly unlikely that companies with real or virtual monopolies are "greedy", again, in the sense of management rubbing their palms while singing pirate songs about how they are going to screw their customers for all they are worth. That's utter nonsense. Companies that have strong market positions will get as much as they can out of the market as possible. Apple is an example. Yeah, they compete with other phone makers, but they really don't. And they get four times what anyone else is getting for their phones (or whatever the ratio might be). They go right to the point where they'll generate the most profit per quarter without losing too many buyers to the competitors due to pricing. Not greed at all. That's just good business management.