> (This is meaningful because, if you split ownership of a company among more people, their personal wealth may be lower, but the company still acts as a unit on the market.)
That's the point of the example.
Zuckerberg owns a given percentage of Facebook. That isn't what increases over time. If he ever wants to spend any of the money, that only ever goes down. The reason he's a multi-billionaire is that a given percentage of Facebook causes him to be when Facebook is a single 900 billion dollar company when it wouldn't if there were a hundred Facebooks each of 1% the size and he only owned the original percentage of one of them.
> And lack of labor organization to serve as a counterweight.
Labor organization is just a different kind of consolidation. It's only useful against a monopoly -- otherwise the business has thin margins and there is nothing for a labor monopoly to extract -- but the correct response to a business monopoly is to smash it to pieces.
That's the point of the example.
Zuckerberg owns a given percentage of Facebook. That isn't what increases over time. If he ever wants to spend any of the money, that only ever goes down. The reason he's a multi-billionaire is that a given percentage of Facebook causes him to be when Facebook is a single 900 billion dollar company when it wouldn't if there were a hundred Facebooks each of 1% the size and he only owned the original percentage of one of them.
> And lack of labor organization to serve as a counterweight.
Labor organization is just a different kind of consolidation. It's only useful against a monopoly -- otherwise the business has thin margins and there is nothing for a labor monopoly to extract -- but the correct response to a business monopoly is to smash it to pieces.