The Dependency Economy: The World Does Not Want to Solve Your Problems. It Wants to Keep Charging You for Them.

We have created an economy where solving problems can be less profitable than keeping people dependent. Corporations celebrate recurring revenue, investors reward it, and ordinary people spend their working lives paying bills that never seem to end.

By Charuka Abhayawickrama

The greatest business model ever invented: Keep the customer paying

The modern economy has discovered something more profitable than solving people's problems: keeping customers paying to manage them.

A software company can make more money renting an application indefinitely than selling it once. A financial institution earns fees for as long as it manages your money. A coaching business may generate more revenue from years of sessions than from quickly helping a client become independent. A pharmaceutical company can receive years of income from an effective chronic treatment.

These examples do not establish that companies deliberately prolong problems. Some services genuinely require long term support, and many conditions have no permanent cure. But they expose an uncomfortable conflict between the best outcome for a customer and the most predictable income for a business.

Modern management celebrates Monthly Recurring Revenue, Annual Recurring Revenue, Customer Lifetime Value and Customer Retention. These metrics tell investors how reliably customers keep paying. They do not, by themselves, tell us whether a customer's problem has been solved.

Did we actually solve the customer's problem?

That should be the first question. Too often, it is not.

The ridiculous dream that helps sell it

Hollywood has spent decades telling us what financial freedom looks like: a wealthy man relaxing on a white sandy Caribbean beach, holding a piña colada, with a superyacht anchored offshore.

Apparently, this is success. But what is he going to do tomorrow? And the day after? How many cocktails can one man drink before becoming bored out of his mind?

I have travelled extensively and experienced extraordinary places. Beautiful beaches are wonderful for a few days. Doing absolutely nothing is not a purpose in life.

Yet millions chase this fantasy. An industry sells passive income, automated businesses and the dream of money arriving every month without work.

Property investors want rent. Banks want interest. Software companies want subscriptions. Financial advisers want management fees. Insurance companies want premiums.

If everybody wants recurring income, who is going to do the actual work to pay for all of it?

Somebody must grow food, build homes, produce services, solve problems and earn the money. Increasingly, ordinary working people are supporting an expanding collection of businesses that want a permanent claim on their income.

I call this the Dependency Economy: a system in which controlling access and preserving customers can become more valuable than making customers independent.

When ownership became permission

Having spent much of my professional life in information technology, I have watched this change firsthand.

Years ago, you purchased software and used it for years. Today, you can pay for an application for a decade and still lose access the moment you stop paying. Your business data may sit inside systems that make moving to a competitor unnecessarily difficult.

Software subscriptions can be excellent value when they provide hosting, security, maintenance and continuing improvements. But why must every simple tool become a permanent rental arrangement?

Entertainment has followed the same path. Netflix, Spotify and other platforms make vast libraries convenient and affordable. But the customer usually owns none of that content. Ten subscriptions averaging $25 per month cost $30,000 over ten years, without allowing for price increases.

This transformation is reaching physical products. Certain car features may require continuing software payments. Repair restrictions can make equipment owners dependent on manufacturers. In July 2026, the United States Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement concerning access to John Deere repair tools and resources.

When you buy a product but cannot meaningfully control, maintain or repair it, ownership begins to resemble renting.

The issue is not only money. It is who retains control after the sale.

The buffalo and the tick

Imagine a buffalo walking through the African savannah. A tick attaches itself and begins feeding. The animal feels some irritation but keeps grazing. Then another tick arrives. And another.

One tick takes very little. Hundreds become a serious burden. The buffalo must keep eating to support itself and the parasites feeding on it.

That is how I see the accumulation of unnecessary recurring expenses.

Just $9.99 a month. Another membership. Another automatic renewal. Another service fee. Each looks harmless. Nobody considers the combined burden.

The buffalo is not necessarily starving. But the buffalo is getting tired.

The modern consumer is surrounded by these obligations. Housing, debt and the cost of essentials are major pressures already. Add countless small, automatic payments, and even a pay rise can disappear before it creates real financial breathing room.

The problem is not one subscription. It is an economic culture in which every company wants to become another tick.

Healthcare: Who benefits when treatment never ends?

Healthcare presents a far more serious question. Millions of people require long term treatment for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes and other chronic conditions. Many medicines are lifesaving. Some diseases cannot be cured, and people should not stop prescribed treatment without medical advice.

But commercial incentives still deserve scrutiny.

Does our healthcare system reward prevention and lasting recovery as strongly as it rewards continuing treatment?

Imagine an effective medicine taken daily for twenty years and a safe permanent treatment for the same condition. The permanent treatment may be better for patients and can also be commercially profitable. But the daily medicine offers predictable repeat sales.

This is not evidence that cures are routinely withheld. It is a reason to examine whether prevention, nutrition, physical activity, early intervention and research into lasting treatments receive sufficient priority.

The success of healthcare should ultimately be measured by healthier people, not simply prescriptions filled or appointments delivered.

A system can employ dedicated doctors and brilliant scientists yet still contain financial incentives that do not perfectly align with patient outcomes.

Selling improvement without a finish line

Parts of the coaching, fitness, education and personal development industries have discovered a similar attraction: progress without a clear endpoint.

One introductory course leads to an advanced program. One coaching package leads to a premium membership. The client is always nearly there, provided they make another payment.

Responsible psychological care and professional education sometimes require sustained support. Good personal trainers, teachers and coaches also provide real ongoing value. But clients should be able to ask a simple question: What does success look like, and how will we measure it?

A useful professional relationship should make people more capable. If a provider cannot explain the intended outcome, consider whether the customer is buying results or merely continued participation.

Finance and property: The divide between collectors and payers

I have spent more than twenty five years investing and trading financial markets. That experience has taught me to examine how financial professionals are compensated.

At a constant portfolio value, a 1 per cent management fee on $1 million costs $10,000 each year and $100,000 over a decade. Excellent advice may justify its cost. Poor advice can quietly consume capital. Investors must assess results, conflicts of interest and total fees.

Property raises a broader question. Rental homes provide a necessary service and investors accept real costs and risks. I invest in property myself. But when prices rise much faster than wages, those who already own assets may become wealthier while those who do not must spend more of their income simply to secure a home.

An economy that rewards owning assets while making ownership increasingly inaccessible risks dividing society into people who collect and people who pay.

This is not a condemnation of all landlords or investors. It is a warning about an economic system in which access to essential resources can become a long term transfer of income away from people who have little opportunity to build assets of their own.

Attention is another form of payment

Social media shows that the customer does not always need to pay money.

A person might find useful information in five minutes. The platform may have more opportunities to earn advertising revenue if that person continues scrolling for three hours.

Dating platforms offer another tension. Someone who finds a lasting relationship may leave the service. A successful outcome for the customer can also mean one less subscriber.

That does not prove these platforms deliberately frustrate customers. It shows why we should question what their incentives reward: user wellbeing and genuine outcomes, or simply prolonged engagement.

The most expensive service may be the one that costs nothing but consumes hours of your life every day.

Artificial intelligence: The next subscription gold rush

Artificial intelligence can eliminate repetitive work, expand human capability and deliver genuine productivity gains. I work in technology and see enormous potential.

But it could also become another stack of permanent bills: subscriptions for writing, programming, research, marketing, accounting and customer service.

A $500 monthly AI system that saves $5,000 in costs can be an excellent investment. A $500 system delivering no measurable value is just another obligation.

Customers must retain control over their information and the freedom to change providers. Otherwise, AI may concentrate even more economic power in companies that control essential tools.

Judge technology by the work it eliminates and the value it creates, not merely by the monthly revenue it collects.

Monetisation is not the same as value creation

Economists have long discussed rentier capitalism and rent seeking: the ways income can flow to people who control assets, privileges or access, rather than exclusively through creating additional productive value.

Not all investment returns or subscriptions are rent seeking. Ownership, maintenance and capital provision can create genuine value. But there is a dangerous point at which control becomes more profitable than contribution.

A software provider can earn more without making its application better. A financial manager can collect fees without improving returns. A course provider can sell more qualifications without improving skills. A healthcare system can perform more treatments without delivering better overall health.

We have confused the ability to collect money with the ability to create value.

Ask different questions. Did the company solve the problem? Save the customer money? Return time? Build capability? Make people healthier? Allow customers to leave freely?

Those outcomes matter more than how many monthly payments a company has secured.

Why hard work no longer feels sufficient

It is fashionable to accuse younger generations of being lazy. Yet many are working, studying, paying rent and trying to save for homes in an economy built to collect from them at every turn.

The bank wants its payment. The landlord wants rent. Insurance, telecommunications, software and entertainment providers all want their share. Before the worker can build wealth, much of the salary is already committed.

Consider an illustrative household paying $750 a month for optional subscriptions, memberships and other services. That is $9,000 a year or $180,000 across twenty years, with no price increases. Invested instead at a hypothetical 7 per cent annual return compounded monthly, those monthly payments could accumulate to approximately $391,000 before taxes and fees. Returns are not guaranteed, and no household should abandon every enjoyable service.

The lesson is not to live miserably. It is to recognise the cost of obligations accepted without thought.

A recurring expense should earn its place in the budget. It should not inherit that place forever.

We need fewer toll collectors and more problem solvers

The world faces disease, poverty, housing pressures, environmental destruction, food insecurity and unequal access to education. We have enormous financial resources and extraordinary scientific talent.

Yet so much commercial energy goes into designing another subscription, membership or fee.

Imagine directing more of that talent towards lasting solutions: affordable housing, curative research, repairable products, technology that removes unnecessary work, education that builds independent skills and financial services that help customers acquire wealth.

I have no objection to businesses making substantial profits. A company that solves a valuable problem deserves to be rewarded.

But I would rather see a company earn a large profit by solving an important problem permanently than by deliberately prolonging it.

The world does not need another million entrepreneurs inventing ways to collect $19.99 a month. It needs more entrepreneurs solving problems worth solving.

Customers should demand transparent pricing, easy cancellation, meaningful ownership and rights to repair. Regulators should tackle deceptive subscription practices and artificial barriers to competition. Investors should recognise that dependable revenue is not, by itself, evidence of social value.

What financial freedom actually means

Return to the man on the Caribbean beach, holding his cocktail and apparently enjoying the perfect life.

I have spent much of my adult life building businesses, investing and pursuing financial independence. For me, freedom is not doing nothing. It is having choices.

It is time to travel, photograph wildlife, explore new places, develop interesting projects and contribute to causes that matter.

A person earning $20,000 a month but spending $19,000 to maintain a lifestyle may have less freedom than somebody earning $5,000 and needing only $2,000.

Financial freedom is not simply how much enters your bank account. It is how much of your life you must surrender to keep money flowing out of it.

Set the buffalo free

Picture the buffalo again, covered in ticks. It keeps grazing. Each parasite takes a little. The animal survives, but it must keep feeding the organisms attached to it.

The Dependency Economy does not need to destroy the consumer. It only needs the consumer to remain productive enough to keep paying.

Another subscription. Another fee. Another renewal. Another obligation.

We should stop celebrating businesses merely because they can keep customers paying. We should celebrate businesses that solve real problems and give people more independence, ownership and control.

The customer wants the problem solved. The business may be more profitable if the problem continues.

That is the conflict we need to confront.

Perhaps it is time we stopped asking how to make money from the buffalo.

Perhaps it is time we started asking how to set the buffalo free.

References and further reading

1. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Federal Court findings concerning eHarmony subscription practices, August 2026.

2. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, proceedings concerning HelloFresh and Youfoodz subscription practices, December 2025.

3. Australian Treasury, proposed reforms addressing subscription traps and hidden fees, February 2026.

4. United States Federal Trade Commission, John Deere right to repair settlement, July 2026.

5. Deloitte Australia, Media and Entertainment Consumer Insights, 2026.

This article expresses personal opinions about economic incentives, recurring revenue and financial independence. It does not claim every subscription is exploitative or suggest discontinuing necessary medical treatment.