By balanced I mean if everyone on earth had the same amount of money then the worlds' wealth would be perfectly balanced. I am not talking about fairness or whether or not the wealth was deserved.
At two ends of the spectrum we have wealth inequality and communism. The ideal sweet spot is somewhere in between the two extremes, right now the United States is leaning towards wealth inequality.
You're thinking investment markets, not philanthropic giving markets. Any think tank is competitively attempting to gain funds to stay afloat. Some do this by lobbying for grants, some by soliciting private donations. But there's a finite amount of capacity to fund think tanks regardless of the source of income.
Google can certainly find other think tanks they like better.
I can get behind this description. Though it does mean that even the most communist and/or totalitarian governments have internal markets if source-agnostic-budget counts. I'm not sure how people with an anti-capitalist ideological bent would respond to that framing.
...and a police force with arrest powers, and corporate compliance offices that follow the letter of the law, and federal investigators that try and parse code...
And once you get big, you can't get any more revenue.
I thought it was clearly stated. It's just not one of those things that adds to the conversation, except perhaps by demonstrating the same principles of the direct action via the downvote. It's so rare I get something I both disagree with and which demonstrates immediately by its subject matter how to deal with it.
