> Companies wouldn’t even be able own subsidiaries in other countries that can legally act as employers or tax payers there.
So? That would enable local companies that occupy the same niche to do so. All these multinationals are not necessarily a good thing.
> It would make it impossible for governments to own minority stakes in local subsidiaries of global corporations to veto some things.
Only if you believe that those local subsidiaries should exist in the first place and that need not be the case.
> It would make it impossible to impose capital requirements on subsidiaries of big financial institutions.
There would be no such subsidiaries.
> It would be impossible for larger competitors to rescue failing peers and keep them operating as a going concern.
These could be structured as asset sales. And a whole lot of trickery that causes these peers to fail would go out the window.
You are making the mistake of looking at the glass 'half empty', when in fact the better way to look at it is what we would get for it in return. Capitalism, but with a much more direct link between UBO and the companies they have a hand in, far less opportunity for nation state level wealth to end up concentrated with a very small number of people and less opportunity for companies to play shell games with their income.
Capitalism, like money is a great invention. But like everything else when taken to extremes it is a net negative, in moderation it could well be uniformly good. But the whole externalization game needs to stop or it will harm us greatly.