Yes, as long as...

I totally agree that checks and balances -- in the abstract, some form of all-to-all coordination between the different components of the system -- are probably the easiest way to healthcheck any system like this. Otherwise you fall into "multipolar traps" [1] where each actor, working independently and acting game-theoretically optimally, can throw the system into undesirable states.

Checks and balances should be implemented. But is this adequately true in the actually-existing implementation of the system?

[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

> Otherwise you fall into "multipolar traps" [1] where each actor, working independently and acting game-theoretically optimally, can throw the system into undesirable states.

how does the natural ecosystem balance itself? I think that as long as each actor has enough degrees of freedom to exploit any loophole in any other actor, the system will self balance (by which, i mean become stable).

Actually, the idea that the nature is in balance seems to be discredited. It is basically either no more than a myth [1], poorly defined [2], or untrue in the traditional conceptualizations [3].

[1] https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8853.html

[2] http://www.wcbbf.org/pdf/balanceofnature/8.pdf

[3] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/096366250506302...

Shareholders and keeping wealth disparity under control are at odds. As long as people are able to buy investments and own the profits of those investments, those people are paid proportionate to how much money they have, making their wealth over time an exponential function, which is inherently unequal even to other exponential functions with slightly different rates of return, and even more unequal to anyone stuck making money linearly by selling their labor.

I'd love to hear a good solution for this within a market system.

This should be easy to check: do today’s wealthy people generally owe their fortune to investing their parents’ money?

My understanding is that upper-middle-class fortunes today are attributed more to cultural norms and posh school districts than to trust funds.

> I'd love to hear a good solution for this within a market system.

Your wealth won't expand forever, because we all die.

Wealth and power still get concentrated in families and corporations. I would argue that these are just as valid "agents" as the individual.

Families tend to dissipate wealth. The Rockefellers have long since dropped away in wealth, for example. So have the Kennedys.

Corporations are owned by shareholders, who die and pass their wealth on to the government, family, and various charities.

For a good solution within a market system: kill everyone but myself and a small harem. Now there is a perfect market of one and all resources are optimally directed to me

Lol, I would wager that shareholder value maximization is far from "optimal"!

In the face of poor human judgement it might be one of the more robust resource allocation schemes available to us. But optimality should never be claimed without proof.