[tramGG]

1. Increase competitive opportunity and capital at the bottom (give easier chances for small upstarts to compete and win)

2. Relax the barrier to entries that only allow big players to compete and win at the top (IPO)

3. Incentivize more people to participate by broadening investor classification.

4. Decrease capital gains taxes.

5. Break up monopolies.

[scarface74]

Increase competitive opportunity and capital at the bottom (give easier chances for small upstarts to compete and win).

How much capital would it take for “small upstarts” to effectively compete with any of the FAANG companies? A small upstart may be able to go viral and overtake Facebook, but the rest of the companies are much more capital intensive.

[tramGG]

Providing more liquidity for people to start with, coupled with making it more difficult for big companies to participate in anti-competitive practices, might make for a new renaissance in growth and perhaps even produce more middle class opportunity again.

[scarface74]

That didn’t answer the question. Apple and Amazon in particular are able to be successful because they both have businesses that require a large capital outlay up front.

[tramGG]

These companies were successful small businesses before they were large businesses. They were able to compete in new industries because they had access to capital, talent, and identified areas that were important and aggressively maintained innovation in those areas by way of investor capital or profits.

Why is there a need for small companies to take those large companies head-on? Maybe slow the ability for the large companies to impede competition in tangential areas.