> You're projecting an argument onto me that I didn't make nor claim to have. I didn't suggest or imply that all forms of capitalism uniquely generate fraud. They do exist in every system. You're angry with my phrasing not sufficiently hedging your concerns. You're also strictly wrong about how legal and regulatory systems impact economic systems. It's neither true nor true of how the literature evaluates said systems.

I'm not projecting anything, your statement reads as

> [companies will commit fraud when the] penalty for fraud is less than the profit of fraud. It's a fundamental feature of capitalism when untethered from objective assessments of value.

To me, you're saying that "fraud is a fundamental feature of capitalism, unless regulated", which implies that fraud is an unavoidable consequence of capitalism unless the authorities step in to prevent it. The tone of your phrasing suggestions specifically that capitalism is directly correlated with fraud. If you didn't intend to make this suggestion, I can understand your consternation to my rebuttal.

Capitalism has nothing to do with fraud. Capitalism has nothing to do with law enforcement and crime punishment.

> If we're in the league where "I cite a magazine article" is considered to be a useful citation proving your point, then I cite all of Dan Ariely's work meant for consumption by lay-folk.

To my point in that article, the 'evidence is everywhere' as illustrated by the broad availability of information to support my claim. Just look at the marketing around electric vehicles and solar in general; you'll see a strong unifying factor of 'economic motivation' in those mediums.

Here's the top result for 'why buy solar' [1]. Top factors are all entirely economic. Clearly, the marketing around these products would prioritize most people's primary motivation for acquiring those products.

[1] https://www.energysage.com/solar/why-go-solar/