It could logically and even statistically be said that customers prefer companies that are charitable, and therefore companies that turn charitable have a competitive advantage over those that aren't charitable. However, let's say that most businesses do end up giving to charity, specifically according to Real Economics, and there is no longer a competitive advantage to do so.

While the competitive advantage has dissipated, there is however a new market standard, whereby customers expect businesses to be charitable according to Real Economics, and if a business is not, they'll simply take their money to a business that is. More so, customers would generally prefer the businesses that are the most charitable, driving up the expectation to be charitable even more, forcing business owners to narrow down their self-imposed definition of what their real net-profit is.

This sounds like a new tax-like burden on businesses. However, a tax is forced, and under the threat of severe penalties such as fines and even prison. Real Economics is not a system of taxation. It is merely a new way of doing business. Any such burden that arises from it, will be as any other "creative destruction" and disruption that arises from innovation, as seen throughout history.

Throughout history, the primary, and largely failed manner of wealth redistribution has been taxing the rich, causing the rich to reallocate their riches away from taxability, or to flee altogether, taking their economic productivity with them to a place with less taxation.

The Real Economics method of redistribution of wealth is charity. Charity is itself redistribution of wealth. How Real Economics proposes to go about compelling business owners to give to charity on a global scale, is not through forcing them, as governments do with taxes, but rather by giving their customers a more charitable option to purchase from (whether through Real Inc. or other entities), until they themselves turn charitable.

Real Economics is set out to provide customers of all industries the option to purchase any product they desire from real (economic) businesses, for only a business that tends towards its own continuity can be termed a real business to begin with. This means that the option Real Economics seeks to give customers, is the option to purchase from those who contribute the proceeds from those purchases back to the humanity and environment of which the customers are themselves a part of and depend on. And of course businesses are themselves apart of and depend on humanity and the environment, hence a business that gives back to such recipients, is a business that lends its own continuity, and can therefore be termed a real business to begin with.

This is competition (for the wealth of humanity) by contribution (of that wealth back to humanity). It’s a contribution of wealth, for a contribution to wealth (to its continuity, quantity, and quality). At that point, is it even charity anymore? Charity is generally contribution without return. The reality is that charity is contribution, with much more in return.

From small business owners to big billionaires, the most ultimate investment of all, granting the greatest return of all, is the continuity, quantity, and quality, of humanity and the environment; the investment of wealth to the resources that make that wealth possible to begin with. Is Real Economics about helping others or is it really about helping ourselves? The answer is really both.

All this being said, we can assuredly say that if business owners are inclined towards good reason, then they will be inclined towards being good, meaning being charitable, even if it's for their own sake. That means that a new market standard does not need to arise out of competition, it can simply come by way of good old fashion education, teaching and leading business owners to a better future for them and for us all.

In establishing such a market standard, there are a few barriers to entry that we foresee. These barriers to entry for a charitable market standard also act as a safe haven for those who wish not to donate to charity. The barriers are thus: distinction, including innovation and convention.

Distinction refers to any quality that a business has, that their consumers desire, compared to, or regardless of, the alternatives. In some cases such as with innovation, the distinct aspects of products may be intellectually protected entirely, not giving customers the choice to incorporate a market standard at all.

Distinction can be as simple as a store offering considerably lower prices than their competitors. Hence, if the store that offers the lowest prices doesn't contribute to charity, most customers, out of necessity, will purchase from them, regardless of charitable alternatives.

Distinction can also refer to something as complex as a platform for third-party sellers that attracts and retains sellers due to their competitively low platform fees, or high popularity among customers. This said platform therefore can simply decide not to contribute to charity, and sellers would still flock to it because of its low fees, and customers would continue shopping on this platform simply because of the mindshare it has acquired in the customers' psyche, and also because of the wider variety of sellers due to the lower fees for those sellers. Amongst many other reasons.

Convention refers to the routine nature of customers to make a purchase for its own sake, to buy what they need or want, period. Sometimes, or much of the time, depending on the person, people just want there product and that's it, regardless of anything adjacent to it, such as the charitable contributions it produces.

Convention can also refer to scenarios such as a customer buying from the same business for the last 50 years and has no desire in sight to look elsewhere, regardless of the alternatives and the charity such alternatives contribute.

Innovation refers to novel ideas that can be intellectually protected and therefore cannot be competed with from the get-go. As well, there are innovations that cannot be replicated or outdone.

What are ways to combat such barriers? It comes down to providing customers with more of a reason to buy from charitably contributive companies, period. The source of this provision of value largely arises from better and more innovation, better and more talent, better and more capital investment. Most companies wouldn't begin without the idea innovated by its creator / founder. Turning the idea into a company comes down to talent, as a company is essentially just talent (other then their tools such as assembly line technology, etc.). Innovation also comes from talent, aka people. Lastly, or rather firstly, capital investment; nothing really moves without paying for it.