And still, a lot of people think the "Yu vill ovn notzing, and be happy" is just a "conspiracy theory".
It becomes a conspiracy when the people quoting that line ramble on about the WEF, governments, Soros, etc... When in reality, "Yu vill ovn notzing, and be happy" is simply a corporate wet dream.
No, a conspiracy theory is one that claims some kind of a conspiracy in the first place. Just because an idea sounds outrageous to you does not make it a "conspiracy theory".
WEF is nothing but a lobbying organization for the 1,000 largest companies on the planet, its member companies paying their dues and funding the organization. WEF is quite open about it, too;
"the world is best managed by a self-selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments and civil society organizations". The fact that they're grooming politicians into the same world view is a fact, not a conspiracy theory; they're
proud of it. And why not? They're not doing anything illegal, much less
evil; they genuinely believe it is for the greater good. Yes, they do believe in abolishing private property for ordinary citizens, but that is because they do not believe ordinary citizens to be competent enough to
own things. That is not a secret either.
George Soros is a multibillionaire who uses his funds for similar purposes, and perfectly openly.
So no. Nothing about those rambles is "conspiracy"; there is no conspiracy there, it is all in the open, with the aforementioned people and organizations truly believing they're doing it for the greater good. They believe that societies where ownership is limited to corporations and governments and civil society organizations, with individual people only renting from them, are better than the ones we have right now. It is not a lie or secret, they truly and openly believe so and say so.
Any dislike against the aforementioned is purely based on moral or ethical grounds. I do think people do not make this clear enough, though.
It would be a conspiracy if they include an actual conspiracy, be it based on ethnicity, stuff like lizard people or aliens or secret societies, or any kind of secret purpose, or perhaps allegations of systematic illegality or somesuch. I have not seen any evidence of that, except perhaps by George Soros as to exactly why he is funding some organizations and not others, but he is free to support any legally operating organization he wants without explaining why he is doing so, so no conspiracies there either.
Usually those same people also support less regulation and less taxes for corporations.
Too many humans don't think for themselves, and just believe what they're told, because it is easier. It is why agitprop is so effective.
We do need the commercial competition, but we must set the boundaries on monetization and exploitation. Housing/real estate is a perfect example. Renting for a few years while saving up, studying, et cetera, is useful. Yet, owning your own home is usually the start of building wealth; it just requires capital. Controlling that at the very local level via zoning laws and similar makes sense, because it balances the two in the long term. Unfortunately, it also means those responsible for zoning have a lot of power, and are at risk of corruption.
Thus, I claim that the best working societies are always in dynamic balance, with the pivot point continuously shifting around a bit.
To circle back to the topic of this thread, I believe we are seeing the increase in rent-seeking behaviour simply because that has become more widely accepted in society, from a moral/ethical standpoint. It is
not a good vs. evil type of situation, because it is way too complex to put in such simplistic terms.
The reason
I oppose rent-seeking and maximal monetization is simple: those like myself who cannot accept excessive rent-seeking and exploitation from a moral or ethical standpoint cannot live in a society based on profit maximization; but those who can live in a society based on profit maximization can easily live in a society that limits it on moral or ethical grounds. The only difference is how far their profit maximization can/is allowed to reach. I also believe that a society with limits along my particular morals allows more people to reach happiness and live fulfilling and longer lives than a profit-maximizing one, but at the core, it indeed is just a moral or ethical question/statement.