• Kache@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Realistically, even if enacted, would be tricky to implement, and would definitely have to be done slowly not to shock the economy.

    I think this also means creating a system where companies beyond a certain size cannot be privately owned and must be governed by large “committees”, since beyond a certain evaluation, concentrated controlling entities would be forced to sell off.

    Long shot research and development (e.g. think employing thousands for a decade, like drug development) could probably be harder to get started, but at the same time less corruptible due to spreading out power.

    I do think spreading out power can be a good thing, but I have to acknowledge that would probably make the government much more powerful (i.e. corruptible) by comparison.

    Also, a lot of wealth is tied up in non-liquid assets, so these billionaires would be forced/incentivized to hold more liquid value – who’d want to hold something that can be capped one year only to have it fall the next?

    So on one hand, a ton of market value disappears from the economy due to increased supply, yet on the other a ton of hoarded value is unlocked to circulate in the economy.

    Anyway, don’t know where I’m going with this, I’m not an expert by any means.