> because they've been overcompensated
How is this determined? Are market mechanisms not working in stock trading either? Seems like they are delivering decent profit numbers for their investors, compared to other companies.
How is this determined? Are market mechanisms not working in stock trading either? Seems like they are delivering decent profit numbers for their investors, compared to other companies.
This is IMO completely the wrong benchmark. Are they delivering value to society? Yes some, but IMO not nearly in proportion to the amount of wealth they've accrued. Your free to make your own judgement about that, but if you agree then you also agree that market mechanisms are not working in this case.
How is this determined? I am trying to see if there is some actionable chain of reasoning here, or if people are just stating the top 5 companies in the public markets qualify? Is it a certain net profit margin? A combination of various factors?
The funny thing is Facebook (or Meta I guess) could fall of the face of the earth tomorrow and humanity would not really be impacted other than temporarily losing WhatsApp groups and having to migrate to a different chat program.
That's my personal judgement.
The actionable response would be progressive taxation on corporate profits which would stop companies getting quite so large, and force (or strongly encourage) companies that wanted to continue growing beyond a certain point to split (which would have the effect of spreading control/power over the economy around).
> The funny thing is Facebook (or Meta I guess) could fall of the face of the earth tomorrow and humanity would not really be impacted other than temporarily losing WhatsApp groups and having to migrate to a different chat program.
Isn't that exactly the problem though. So much of societies resources going towards something that isn't ultimately that important. The opportunity cost here is huge.