This discussion is quiet far from what I've initially said from my perspective, nonetheless...

> it's definitely not some law of economics or anything like that.

This is a no true scotsman fallacy. It's true that this is not a preordained truth, but you'll realistically always have someone at a loss for as long as resources are limited. And if you can't see one than you're just ignoring the one's at a loss as irrelevant.

I.e. descendents with natural resources or even non-human entities in the context of meat production etc