> That's not the claim that was made, which was the corporations are the real holders of power, which was offered as an explicit denial of the claim that a narrow set of wealthy individuals hold power.
That is a refutation of that claim, because the distortion takes the control away from any individual and constrains it within the path defined by "law and corporate governance documents with regard to governance of the corporation while it is a going concern."
Bezos can make himself CEO despite not holding a majority position, but if he gets cancer he can't decide to liquidate all of the company's assets (not just his personal shares) and then use it all to look for a cure. Because he's still not in control of it, the corporation is, which is different.
He also can't decide to purposely suffer major losses in order use the company's resources to solve significant social problems like climate change, even if he wanted to, without the consent of the other shareholders.
> In fact, it concentrates power even more narrowly in the most wealthy by suppressing the effective power of the diffuse minority of wealth held by broad masses in a way somewhat similar to how FPTP electoral systems dilute the political power of diffuse minorities of votes.
Yes, absolutely, but the thing causing that to happen is the incredibly large size of corporations, not the wealth of particular individuals. If Amazon was 10% its current size and correspondingly Bezos owned all of it, he would be in control of fewer resources than he is now despite having the exact same amount of personal wealth.
And then he could decide to use the company's resources to cure cancer or fight climate change, because he would be the sole owner, so there would be even less power bound up in corporate restrictions.
> No, it nominally belongs to Apple.
You can't have it both ways. Either the corporation is a legal fiction and the real power lies with some natural persons, who for a corporation are nominally ultimately the shareholders, or the corporation is a thing unto itself with its own rules and goals and is the owner of the assets, in which case the distinction between the corporation and the individuals is quite relevant precisely because it affects how the resources are used.
That is a refutation of that claim, because the distortion takes the control away from any individual and constrains it within the path defined by "law and corporate governance documents with regard to governance of the corporation while it is a going concern."
Bezos can make himself CEO despite not holding a majority position, but if he gets cancer he can't decide to liquidate all of the company's assets (not just his personal shares) and then use it all to look for a cure. Because he's still not in control of it, the corporation is, which is different.
He also can't decide to purposely suffer major losses in order use the company's resources to solve significant social problems like climate change, even if he wanted to, without the consent of the other shareholders.
> In fact, it concentrates power even more narrowly in the most wealthy by suppressing the effective power of the diffuse minority of wealth held by broad masses in a way somewhat similar to how FPTP electoral systems dilute the political power of diffuse minorities of votes.
Yes, absolutely, but the thing causing that to happen is the incredibly large size of corporations, not the wealth of particular individuals. If Amazon was 10% its current size and correspondingly Bezos owned all of it, he would be in control of fewer resources than he is now despite having the exact same amount of personal wealth.
And then he could decide to use the company's resources to cure cancer or fight climate change, because he would be the sole owner, so there would be even less power bound up in corporate restrictions.
> No, it nominally belongs to Apple.
You can't have it both ways. Either the corporation is a legal fiction and the real power lies with some natural persons, who for a corporation are nominally ultimately the shareholders, or the corporation is a thing unto itself with its own rules and goals and is the owner of the assets, in which case the distinction between the corporation and the individuals is quite relevant precisely because it affects how the resources are used.