To me, this is the root of the difference between Free (libre) software as defined by the FSF and open source software as popularized by the OSI.
The primary case for open source is business and money - money is more efficiently spent on supporting open source, and all of the businesses that spend money on open source get to benefit from contributions from others. In this model an open source economy is desirable because that's how you prevent one greater fool from funding all of the open source software that everyone else uses without paying.
The primary case for Free (libre) software is the social utility/social value of the software. Their case is primarily moral and ethical first. They're not against making money on Free (libre) software, but that's not their end goal. Their end goals are political and focused on end users, not businesses.
I'm not trying to say one is inherently better than the other, just trying to highlight the differences.
I agree to some degree, but I don't think an open source economy is fundamentally opposite Libre/FSF style objectives, in that they are not opposed to people getting paid for their efforts, but that binary only distribution and restrictive licencing are bad in a variety of ways.
If we consider a company like Oracle, which seems antithetical to open source principles on many levels, it would be possible to treat them as an open source debtor. Transactions between Oracle and open source economy participants would incur a tax, making their products less competitive with others, until they started contributing or bought open source offset credits. This provides the dual benefits of funding open source and penalising non-sharing. Things that really cost companies nothing, like publishing their Android patches, become valuable, and keeping them private becomes a cost.
The primary case for open source is business and money - money is more efficiently spent on supporting open source, and all of the businesses that spend money on open source get to benefit from contributions from others. In this model an open source economy is desirable because that's how you prevent one greater fool from funding all of the open source software that everyone else uses without paying.
The primary case for Free (libre) software is the social utility/social value of the software. Their case is primarily moral and ethical first. They're not against making money on Free (libre) software, but that's not their end goal. Their end goals are political and focused on end users, not businesses.
I'm not trying to say one is inherently better than the other, just trying to highlight the differences.