And there’s a minimum amount of money that makes you a danger to society, able to buy laws, screw over communities and so on;
Fair, but. There is a minimum amount of money that lets you start your own space program just because you think rockets are cool. And that amount is several billion.
This would also mean mandatory dilution of corporate control: when a company gets big enough to push on society, the public should get a bigger and bigger say in how it’s run, with founders and investors keeping enough control to be ultra rich but not enough to run their bulldozer over society.
It sounds like under this system, Amazon would be a moderately successful online book store that was run by a squabbling mess of politicians.
Or perhaps Bezos would carefully keep his company below the limit so as to stay in control.
Power would be divided towards more smaller companies. Which would mean different perverse incentives, but maybe not fewer perverse incentives? I’m not convinced that lots of little companies is better than one big company.
Fair, but. There is a minimum amount of money that lets you start your own space program just because you think rockets are cool. And that amount is several billion.
It sounds like under this system, Amazon would be a moderately successful online book store that was run by a squabbling mess of politicians.
Or perhaps Bezos would carefully keep his company below the limit so as to stay in control.
Power would be divided towards more smaller companies. Which would mean different perverse incentives, but maybe not fewer perverse incentives? I’m not convinced that lots of little companies is better than one big company.