> to yield optimal outcomes Optimal for who? By whose measure? Your position seems to be based on an assumption that you know what's optimal for all of us, and

> to yield optimal outcomes Optimal for who? By whose measure? Your position seems to be based on an assumption that you know what's optimal for all of us, and that you're willing to impose that on others. Pardon my disagreement. "Rentier" capitalism also assumes that you can distinguish which economic activity contributes to society and which does not. What criteria or principles do you use to make that distinction? Honest question. > corporations enjoy great legal protections by being able to operate within a wealthy and highly developed polity It is the liberal economic policy that birthed the wealthy and highly developed polity, not the other way around. Corporations enjoy great legal protections because otherwise we would not benefit from their existence. And benefit tremendously we do. My whole point is that we should leave them well enough alone because we all reap incalculable wealth from their marketable innovations. We already have a golden goose, and you seem to be suggesting that we smother it with governance. > executives have an outside impact on social norms and future policy How would this impact be curtailed by a more stingy compensation package? Executives wield their influence via the corporations they control, not their private bank accounts. > the company has earned its money but some of that money has been earned on the backs of writers On the backs of writers who were compensated for their services at a rate agreed by both parties? Seems like a pretty fair deal to me. I don't see why anyone should be paid more than they can freely negotiate for their services from people who are interested in retaining them. In a free society, people are inescapably paid according to how expensive they are to hire, train, and replace. It's the same reason why writers are paid more than agricultural labourers, and executives are paid more than writers. If you can devise a scheme to hire 10 people at $10/hour and generate $1,000 in value, I'm having a hard time understanding why the remaining $900 isn't entirely yours. I see this sentiment a lot and honestly hope you'd be so kind as to explain the calculus here.