Economies of scale taper off: truly large concentrations of wealth are not needed for this, and oligopolies can free large companies from the kind of competition that drives the search for efficiency.
I am not sure about how large concentrations of wealth are supposed to increase the standard of living across the population.
> Large concentrations of wealth are necessary for scaling production, allowing lower costs and increasing standard of living
Communist planned economies were chasing those same sweet scaling benefits as well. Scaling does not scale.
Large concentrations of wealth are necessary for scaling production, allowing lower costs and increasing standard of living. Moreover, large concentrations of wealth are usually not very concentrated in the first place: the wealth of the wealthy is spread across the economy and the wealth of associations is spread across the world.
> It boggles my mind that people who argue against large governments because their incentives aren't correctly aligned don't see that precisely the same argument applies to private individual/businesses with large amounts of wealth.
The same arguments RE power/monopoly/unaccountability that apply to corporations in the market apply to the government much more in every case. Additionally, the government has the authority to coerce everyone into doing what they want to be done. It also has the ability to steal your money and spend it on things that you might somewhat benefit from at the best or are absolutely morally reprehensible at the worst.
And no, the existence of voting does not make any of that less of a problem.