There are several factors that make wealth concentrate in the Unites States. The U.S.A. is supposed to be a democracy with sovereign citizens getting their political interests done through representatives elected to government. When corporations become to large, wealth and powerful democracy is effectively eclipsed and the political philosophy of corporatism (invented by the fascist dictator Mussolini).
Too large of corporations in number of employees just have too much political and social influence and probably corrupt free market competition in a number of ways. Very large corporations and subsidiaries form networks and insider stockholders by into other large corporations and corporate boards may be overlapping. Such vast power and wealth networks drive business in the direction that best suits the bottom line of profit. The media fawns over Wall Street and no wonder- its owned by the most wealthy people.
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/20957/as-inequality-grows-in-mexico-so-does-social-polarization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
Too large of corporate employment numbers also return outsize salaries to CEOs and board members reinforcing the concentration of wealth. Patents are filed by the truckloads by Silicon Valley American zaibatsu. Individualism is dampened.
A remedy would be to limit any corporation to just 20,000 employees. Then a corporation would think twice about paying huge salaries and stock packages to CEOs. If corporations could have no more than 20,000 workers and no individual could own shares in more than three corporations competition would increase and inventiveness would be more reward,, the concentration of wealth might slow a little for the 1% and democracy might emerge from the dark, dank moldy sub-basement it is locked in by Wall Street.
When some corporation has need of more workers it could form ad hoc business relationship with other corporations as needed. The army hiring civilian contractors used to work that way.
One shouldn't establish such large businesses and corporate networks that hey become regarded as too big to fail. That applies to banks too. One of the challenges of reforming mass economics to a sustainable ecologoical economic infrastructure is that too large of corporations put up far too much political and social economic resistance to change. Too large of corporations are maladaptive to the pace of economic reform required for a sustainable human economy.
Socialists are an even worse problem compounding the error of too large of corporations as they seek to ossify Wall Street with high taxes and socialist hegemony doubling down on the corporatist philosophy that creates a maladaptive macro-economy for the nation and ecological sustainability.
Moderate size corporations can be allowed to fail without social disaster. It is easier to modify and reform smaller corporations. Smaller corporations may be components for the macro-economy that can be integrated within a sustainable economic system more readily and without the disruption required for the very large.
Too large of corporations in number of employees just have too much political and social influence and probably corrupt free market competition in a number of ways. Very large corporations and subsidiaries form networks and insider stockholders by into other large corporations and corporate boards may be overlapping. Such vast power and wealth networks drive business in the direction that best suits the bottom line of profit. The media fawns over Wall Street and no wonder- its owned by the most wealthy people.
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/20957/as-inequality-grows-in-mexico-so-does-social-polarization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
Too large of corporate employment numbers also return outsize salaries to CEOs and board members reinforcing the concentration of wealth. Patents are filed by the truckloads by Silicon Valley American zaibatsu. Individualism is dampened.
A remedy would be to limit any corporation to just 20,000 employees. Then a corporation would think twice about paying huge salaries and stock packages to CEOs. If corporations could have no more than 20,000 workers and no individual could own shares in more than three corporations competition would increase and inventiveness would be more reward,, the concentration of wealth might slow a little for the 1% and democracy might emerge from the dark, dank moldy sub-basement it is locked in by Wall Street.
When some corporation has need of more workers it could form ad hoc business relationship with other corporations as needed. The army hiring civilian contractors used to work that way.
One shouldn't establish such large businesses and corporate networks that hey become regarded as too big to fail. That applies to banks too. One of the challenges of reforming mass economics to a sustainable ecologoical economic infrastructure is that too large of corporations put up far too much political and social economic resistance to change. Too large of corporations are maladaptive to the pace of economic reform required for a sustainable human economy.
Socialists are an even worse problem compounding the error of too large of corporations as they seek to ossify Wall Street with high taxes and socialist hegemony doubling down on the corporatist philosophy that creates a maladaptive macro-economy for the nation and ecological sustainability.
Moderate size corporations can be allowed to fail without social disaster. It is easier to modify and reform smaller corporations. Smaller corporations may be components for the macro-economy that can be integrated within a sustainable economic system more readily and without the disruption required for the very large.
