>stop the madness of centralizing the wealth among founders and investors, and distribute it to the workers. This seemed to imply that the investors would take

>stop the madness of centralizing the wealth among founders and investors, and distribute it to the workers. This seemed to imply that the investors would take less of a stake. Are they adverse to funding employee owned enterprises? I've never looked into it. Maybe they think that companies with dictatorial management are more effective at competing? For the record, having been a founder, I agree that equity tends to be overly concentrated with the founders.