[igorkraw]

I see this argument often but for me it misses something.

The difference is about power. The wealth being this concentrated means the power is concentrated.

If people are okay with the idea of an ETF, or a wealth manager (or any type do fund manager/investment bank) then they should be okay with sovereign wealth funds/national ETFs that provide dividends with a guaranteed single share single vote setup.

If you want competition, then the US government used to be good at creating and sustaining artificial compétition in military procurement - similar to how Amazon let's teams compete on the same projects internally.

Because the competition would be artificially and enforced by laws, there's just as much as potential for massive efficiency gains as there is potential for corruption (the Norwegian national wealth fund has gone swimmingly for them)

[simianwords]

I agree with power argument but let’s not assume that this will solve any material problem with the poor. Sure they will have more “power” or say in how money is invested but they are consuming as per before.

I also think there are problems with having poor people have a say in how money should be invested. I think Bezos has a better say in how Amazon should run rather than random people.

[esseph]

What if Amazon isn't considered a "net good". Does it matter if Bezos is "better"?