 Perhaps. But the unequal division of the social surplus cannot explain all cases of exploitation—including some of the most paradigmatic. To see this, let us return once more to the case of the lost desert hiker. \(A\) offers to sell \(B\) a bottle of water for $1,000. This would appear to be a clear instance of an exploitative proposal. But it is not, as suggested above, because the water bottle is worth less than $1,000 to \(B\). Indeed, it is probably worth far more! Most people put a fairly high value on their continued existence. So, suppose \(B\) values not dying at $1 million. In that case, \(B\) gives up something he values at $1,000 in exchange for something he values at $1 million. \(A\), in turn, gives up something he values at close to $0 in exchange for something he values at $1,000. The exchange creates a social surplus of $1 million, but fully 99.9% of that surplus goes to \(B\), leaving \(A\) with a mere .1%. If exploitation consists of grabbing the lion’s share of the social surplus of an exchange, then we are forced to conclude that thirsty \(B\) is actually exploiting water-selling \(A\)—an unlikely result!