Yes. Your analogy is fun, and I like the general implications, but it’s still based on Anthropocentric Consumptionism. A thousand times, “YES” to the concept that people are being raped by other people (and imaginary people) for very high profits. But what about the planet? What about the anthropocentric concepts that steal resources from under our feet (and away from our grandchildren) to serve only the imagined desires of the contemporary collective human beings guided by the desires of spreadsheets, not actual people? Who is to set up the cooperative rules for the planet itself and future people?

I submit that the opposite of unfettered capitalism is simply sales taxes. Markets will always exist. People need to know real costs, not misleading prices.

The opposite of anthropocentrism is environmentalism. I don’t mean the veggie-eating idiocracy of the Green Party, but actually putting the needs of physical resources our progeny will need (actual conserve-atism) above profits of our imaginary beings (gods and corporations). Monetary economics is an emergent phenomenon, and we should not use it to determine the lives of human beings. We first have to determine what people are actually sustainably useful for in terms of the needs of future people, and that starts with maintaining resources, not consumerist economics (cash flows to private islands).