People could do more projects/start more companies to earn more, but no one should be accumulating millions by doing almost nothing as is the case now.
Outside of people who inherit this kind of wealth, who exactly is accumulating millions just sitting on their asses?
And then you have people earning millions, that at least when compared to the numerous workers being underpaid and actually doing the hard work that generates profit, basically do so little work they may as well be sitting on their asses.
Capital gains taxes don't prevent an investor from making money.
They're not exactly doing nothing but they're not producing anything of real value. This is a growing problem in the US.
Haven't they already?
Besides, that might be a good thing, if corporate overreach continues to grow unchecked.
Solved by limiting the profit that can be transferred out to foreign companies/parent companies.
If a market is too big, as long as money can still be made even with a cap, a company won't leave - or if they do a competitor will spring up to take its place.
Foreign investment drops off because, hey, who is going to invest if they can take their money back out?
It's also going to limit foreign investment outside the country.
It also screws with exchange rates and interest rates because of the Interest Rate parity law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate_parity
https://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/2012/j...
And you think that's a bad thing?
There is nothing intrinsically limiting about the format of a coop that would prevent it from being as big as needed, IMO.
Inability to expand is practically built-in to the structure of worker and consumer cooperatives.
That they're free to exist but don't dominate the marketplace (the total revenue of those 300 companies is still less than the revenue of the top 10 non-coops) should be evidence enough but you're welcome to exploree the literature yourself.
Why do you think not dominating the marketplace is a bad thing?
What is it you think about their structure that limits them?
And regardless of your answer, whatever issues may or may not exist and be limiting, rules and limitations can be adjusted as needed. The fundamental principle is that workers would have more of a say to some extent, but more importantly receive more of the profit that their work produces.
A coop cannot pursue outside investment by issuing shares, it must rely on philanthropy, subsidisation, or loans for this.
Why would an employee-shareholder willingly reliquish their interest in the company to improve productivity and returns for their peers - such as automating away their own role? It necessitates make-work inefficiencies.
Increasing the size of the company doesn't mean an increased return for the employee-shareholders, they might even end up working much harder to just maintain their income - the larger the company gets the truer this becomes as they reach dimishing returns in their sector.
Successful coops get insular and wary of freeriders, as such they prefer to outsource where possible - Mondragon for example outsources labour.
Again the literature is plentiful and on a personal level I have no objection to them, but to believe they are without serious shortcomings is naive.
That aside, so your main complaint is people can't invest in coops? There is nothing limiting coops growth except the fact that the members are not trying to become global monopolies. And even if there were some limitation, the context of this discussion is some kind of improvement or alternative to the current system we have today. There is no reason what constitutes a coop could not be refined to eliminate any limitations.
Also, you vaguely claim 'the literature' supports what you are saying without naming anything specific, and I can do the same - there is plenty of literature arguing explicitly in favor of coops, addressing any of the things you claim as issues.