I don't understand what on earth you mean by that, but I actually hit the bullseye with that comment.

Holding back big corporations IS reducing their profits, though it could also be anti-trust laws that capitalism REQUIRES to function as close to “morally” as possible, though it may be at some sacrifice of profit, that profit is worthless to us all if there isn’t a guarantee that they’ll actually commit to creating jobs and funding their workers, which, in many circumstances, requires a coercive hand to ensure. The “invisible hand” of the market is created or guided by the coercive power of an iron fist, and sometimes, that is a necessary and good thing, whether that be by bailouts, worker compensation, nationalizing failing banks, or creating incentives into a certain direction.

Employer-to-employee transactions often only give the bare minimum, or very slightly above, to the employee. The deal isn’t even, it’s placed in the employers favor, and what’s leftover from the worker’s labor that isn’t necessary to the survival of the company is just inherently stealing, since the workers directly created that, or did the work to gain that from the market, thereby, that money is not liable to the employer’s ownership, but to the workers themselves. The employee only works for them because it gets them out of poverty, which, in so many ways, is what can seal your doom should you fail to find a decent job in time. The worker has to do that to survive, the company gains what it WANTS, further than what it needs most of the time. People work because if they don’t, the hurt they deal with from working already would get so much worse. Working conditions here already are insane, and that fault doesn’t lie with the government, as our heaviest times for Keynesian economics had an overall much higher positive impact for workers, and what we have now was a lot less regulations than before in many areas.

The market has such high participation because it’s the only chance people have at surviving, same way as in feudalism where so many had to heavily focus on their local markets to survive, it’s because they needed it to live. The market generally tends to be far less kind to the poor, especially in impoverished nations where the populations are used as cheap labor with the slightest chance of creating an overall profit for their country. (Often, those profits are used to recycle the whole exploitation process to further benefit more powerful nations) I’ve heard the whole “society” question a thousand times, the whole “if it’s so bad then why is it used” thing is just an old question. People often ask it as if there’s any other alternatives that have gained enough investment to work on a large scale.