>I think there is are a few hidden premises here that need to be called out That's what the experiment is for. But let me put this bug in your ear: Most econ

>I think there is are a few hidden premises here that need to be called out That's what the experiment is for. But let me put this bug in your ear: Most economic models are based on the premise that people can walk away from a potential transaction with no losses. That when people trade value, each party leaves the table with more value than they brought to it but if they leave they are no worse off. That's a large part of the brilliance of the free market -- value is continually created. However, this breaks down when one party loses value if they walk away, negative utility, especially if the other party knows it. And it is especially troublesome when that negative utility is expandable e.g. when the alternative is pain or death -- things people will generally pay whatever they can to avoid. That's why strong arming is not considered good economic policy. It can lead to net destruction of value. In some cases this can be ignored because the value created for one party more than makes up for the value destroyed for the other party but, in general, it is more than possible that the net effect is negative. With the poor they might not be threatened directly but the consequences of not, say, selling their time for less than it is actually worth can be just as bad as if someone was robbing them. We're not talking about making people rich, we are talking about removing desperation and avoidance of death and pain as a motivating factor.