Most business is about providing value by delivering goods or services that people want and are willing to pay for. Visit your local shops, how many of them are convincing people to buy proverbial tulips and leaving their customers holding the bag? Look at the most valuable companies in the world; they all do or make stuff people happily pay for because they actually find value in it.
Certainly there are people who succeed in business by doing what you say, but it’s not how most success happens.
But there is a real magic that happens in the process there.
When two people make a deal, voluntarily, at least rationally (unless it is charity) both expect to be better off.
The magic of the businessman is to connive his way into getting the largest slice of the 'better off'. He generally can't legally make a deal without generating value, but if he can capture it to the point the customer is only one iota better off he is a good businessman and no one has been defrauded.
Customers also tend to try to get the largest slice of the "better off." That's not special. Do you take less pay than you could get because you don't want to be greedy? Do you voluntarily pay more than the listed price when purchasing items? Of course not.
In a properly functioning market, the limiting factor is competition. A business can't capture 99% of the "better off" because the guy down the street will undercut it by only capturing 98% and all the customers will go there. A customer likewise can't capture 99% because the business will decide it's not worthwhile and sell to customers who capture less. Somewhere in the middle is found equilibrium.
Bag-holding is different, it means there's some sort of trickery and the other side doesn't actually benefit from the transaction. And this does happen, but it's not the norm. Again, go take a look at your local shops. Which ones are engaging in this?
There is a 'human' process 'somewhere in the middle' as you say.
I'm not anti-capitalist, I just acknowledge this as a fundamental part of the human process. It might even be the case the businessman's incentive don't fully align with the stockholder/owner's incentive, in many case the businessman can profit at the expense of the company by capturing higher commission with side-effects that the company won't understand.
A clever businessman will get the better end of that, while still leaving his customer better off than if he hadn't transacted at all, as many witness at the car dealership.
My point is that most business is in that middle. A typical business transaction ends with both sides getting a decent chunk of the value produced. Abusive transactions happen but they're not that common, certainly not the majority as the other comment said.
Optimally, suppliers/vendors/customers would like to grow together. If the companies I'm the vendor for are only getting a tiny sliver of value from what I'm selling them then they might not grow in their market, and my business with them also won't grow.
There's a lot of narrow-sightedness in this zero-sum model of transactions.
I just described a possibility where the businessman is better off and the customer is one iota better off, that is not 'zero-sum'.
> When two people make a deal, voluntarily, at least rationally (unless it is charity) both expect to be better off.
That is not how the current US administration seems to see (foreign) trade. :)
Unless you take the skeptical view that the US administration does not represent the people but rather merely the administration and its ilk, who stand to profit immensely if they are in cahoots with corrupt import/export smugglers or are trading for gains in some of the few winners, or even just shorting the losers.
Trade is not a zero sum game.
I just described a possibility where the businessman is better off and the customer is one iota better off, that is not 'zero-sum'.