[rockemsockem]

I was taking this last comment

> perhaps not beneficial overall to even have extremely rich individuals at all

To mean there would be fewer. I suppose it depends on where the "extremely rich" line is drawn, but I feel like you must be extremely rich to start a project that normally only a government could start.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Why do only the resource allocations of rich people count as the decisions about resource allocation? What about the decisions made by non-rich people?

As the bumper sticker says, it seems easier for most people today to imagine the end of the world than to imagine an alternative to corporate capitalism.

[rockemsockem]

I said why, because for capital intensive processes it's unrealistic to expect large groups of individuals to raise enough money to start them.

We do have Kickstarter, Go Fund Me, etc, but I don't think those have turned out to be great tools for raising a very large amount of money. And I am referring to large capital allocations towards a goal. I wish there was a better version of Kickstarter, but VCs seem like a better tool.

I'm just talking about capitalism and what ideal wealth distributions look like under a fundamentally capitalist system. I think America's system has lots of points for improvement, particularly on the side of worker protection from exploitation, wealth distribution, and campaign finance. But, I still think that we should have individuals wealthy enough to fund weird projects just because they want to. And in fact we should have more than we have today just with less extreme wealth.

What is it exactly that you are saying we should change? Everything? Please be specific.