> Especially since the people responsible, more often than not, remain extremely well off while the rest of us get to pick up the pieces. This is equally true

> Especially since the people responsible, more often than not, remain extremely well off while the rest of us get to pick up the pieces. This is equally true of Wall St and the government, except that neither has shown they’re capable of managing the company — while the founder has. I’m not seeing what the benefit is in removing control from someone successful to give it to people who are routinely not - eg, Wall St running Boeing into the ground, to the point their planes self-crash (737), can’t be certified because the doors blow off (777), or be manufactured to spec (787). > supremely unimaginative to believe that we couldn't easily come up with a situation where Jeff Bezos owns 0.01% of Amazon but still maintains full control of the company Your only argument for really complicated legal structures, including having to constantly change the ownership structure, is that you don’t like people who are wildly successful can parlay that success into other efforts? Okay — but I think that’s dumb. Why is it a problem that Jeff Bezos can try his hand at rockets now that he’s demonstrated success at leading Amazon? — or that Elon Musk can try fixing Twitter now that helps demonstrated success at Tesla?