Only if they're genuinely curious. Otherwise, it's just a pointless exercise in explaining something that a) they could have learned already, and b) they actively don't want to understand. As Heinlein said, "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Like pbhjpbhj, I doubt that randomdata was as incredibly naive as he sounded. I took it as a rhetorical device. But using that device here amounts to either denying the malfeasance that can occur when people with wildly differing power levels negotiate or saying that the exploitation of workers is fine because market outcomes are always right.

The former is not a credible position; history provides too many counterexamples. The latter is a sort of reptilian free-market fundamentalism that often hides behind rhetorical devices because "might makes right" it not a moral standard most people will openly subscribe to.