Limiting profits is what competition is supposed to do. We ought to structure industries so that they are in fact very competitive. I've written lots on this, maybe start here and see the list at the end. drafts.interfluidity.com/2024/08/13/c... 1/

We should also insist that corporations mostly absent themselves from politics. Lobbying should be much more tightly regulated, and Congressional staffs should be expanded to develop expertise in-house. 1st Amendment rights of corporations should be much more limited than for individuals. 2/

In general, conventional wisdom among firms should be that interventions in politics are dangerous. They have a role in communicating industry specific information to representatives and policymakers, but no legitimate advocacy role beyond that. 3/

They must compete in a world designed by and for the voting public and its representatives. 4/

Obviously this is all easier said than done, and long before Trump, corporate capture has been undermining our system of government. Indeed, that's largely why we got Trump! 5/

But note that in a world where corporate shareholders and executives face limited financial upside (because they've already reached the effective cap), they'd have less incentive to deploy corporate influence as rapaciously. 6/

In the pre-Reagan era, when high marginal income tax rates were still 70%, it was easier to get generous labor settlements and Bell Labses, since shareholders were only forgoing 30¢ on the dollar by spending on those things. 7/

The nature of the corporation, including just how "greedy" it is, is a function of the social arrangements that construct it and in which it is embedded. 8/

Much of our challenge is to devise social arrangements in which corporations retain (really regain) incentives to deliver goods and services efficiently, without behaving as rapacious amoral agents, in communities and in politics. Greed may be good, but only to a degree. /fin