> I think it’s basically admitting that the right dictator, if they are there based on merit, can really perform better than someone who wins by their skill at

> I think it’s basically admitting that the right dictator, if they are there based on merit, can really perform better than someone who wins by their skill at campaigning. Sure. But also there are big differences between companies and countries/government. Companies compete in a market. There isn't much of a marketplace for country/government. This is a check on individual power, and forces the company to perform somewhat in alignment with what we want as a society. Concentration of power (monopoly) is still an issue in a market and so we regulate the market. The "dictator" of a company answers to both the market and to regulators, making it less dangerous as a concentration of power than an actual dictator. Related, it is totally okay for companies to fail, and they regularly do. We are a lot less okay with governments failing. Companies can also serve a niche. Governments need to serve their entire population. Governments are tasked with all sorts of collective action problems for diverse groups with varying opinions; companies get to pick their market. It's unclear that CEOs tell us much about a dictator trying to serve a population with a range of opinions.