Just ask local farmers. They make more money selling directly to people than they do selling to corporations. The people also save money by buying a farmer's produce directly from them, as its cheaper. For instance, you can buy a whole/half/quarter cow, have it butchered, pick exactly what kinds of cuts you want, and freeze the meat, and save lots of money over buying it at the store as needed.

Ah, Shogun. The fictional take on the life of the very real William Adams. The miniseries was pretty good too, but I don't think that scene was in it.

That's actually a major facet of the Confucian class system, which sprang up in China but was adopted across the rest of East Asia as Chinese influence took root many centuries ago. Since merchants were indeed seen as producing nothing by their own hand, but instead move around the goods produced by others, they were ranked lowest in this system, beneath both farmers and craftsmen. (In China the top class were the scholars, thought to be the wisest on account of having to pass the imperial examination; in Japan it was the 'kuge', civil nobility, until they were overthrown & marginalized alongside the imperial family itself by the samurai toward the end of the Heian Period.)

I read Shogun, Tai-Pan, and King Rat. All good. (Tai-Pan prob the least exciting) The merchant scene stuck with me as well. King rat is basically an extension of the merchant mindset. Just he's a POW running contraban and favors instead of rice and silk. At least he has a better motivation / redemption arc.

Tai-Pan has it on a macro scale. I can't remember the fictional admiral's name.. or was it an admiral? It was something like Commodore Perry. Every time China or Japan would close off a market or harbor to the west and confiscate/arrest/slaughter he'd roll a couple of gunships up a river shelling the elites, and business would be reopened. Which is essentially what the US foreign policy still is to this day. Only.. it's benefitting a very small group of oligarchs, versus the greater population.

"Why? This man produces nothing. He exploits the farmer who grows the food by buying it for a pittance and then marks it up, selling it to us for more than it's worth."

" Oh yes, the farmers and city people will surely be more wealthy once that pesky middle man is gone, right? He wasn't providing value to anyone! After all, the people can just travel to the countryside and buy their produce direct from the farmer.

Wait, wait, you're telling me that isn't feasible? That there will be a massive loss of efficiency in the economy? That crops will rot in the fields? Okay, what we need is for government to collect all the produce and distribute it at a fair price. What price is that? Well, we have these experts... "

And I'm sure you know how well that sort of system will work out. My point is that the merchant is providing economic value by being the middleman, and moreover the notion that he is not is typical of leftist thought.

but it's always annoyed me that no matter the industry, the middlemen always seems to make much more money than the producer.

In a properly functioning free market the end consumer decides how much the service the middleman is providing is worth. That service includes connecting producers to consumers, taking on the cost and risk of carrying inventory, opportunity cost, and more. Those services are in fact extremely valuable, both to the producer and to the consumer. If you think about it a bit you'll see why. For example, how much are a farmer's crops worth to him if they rot in his field? How much is a watermelon that you have to walk 10 miles to buy worth?

Now don't get me wrong, there absolutely are cases where the middlemen abuse the system through anti-competitive behaviors like collusion, monopolies, and so forth, and I do believe in (minimal) regulation to prevent those exploits.