At least in Bezos' case: let's imagine his position after the Amazon IPO. It's absolutely true that his skills as a capital allocator are extremely socially val

At least in Bezos' case: let's imagine his position after the Amazon IPO. It's absolutely true that his skills as a capital allocator are extremely socially valuable. But at the same time, him taking advantage of his newfound liquidity wouldn't prevent him from continuing in that role: he wasn't going to be dumped and replaced. He could have given away his money to high value charitable causes and still continued to run Amazon. Other people would be getting rich in his stead, sure, but some amount of that wealth accruing to other people would also end up reaching charity. The only big risk would be if his lack of ownership in the company caused him to not be able to execute on his vision. Going at the question from another direction: imagine you have two companies, each with the potential to provide equal economic and social value. However, the government promises to tax the profits of one at 0% and the other at 90%. Which one will be undercapitalized? I would argue this is analogous to at least some charitable situations: oftentimes it's impossible to capture the economic benefit of socially valuable investments, because of institutional, legal, or informational challenges. But the value from making that "investment" doesn't disappear: it simply dissipates into the amorphous category of positive externalities.