> necessary for efficient resource allocation in the absence of (hypothetical well-implemented) dictatorial central planning

Replacing a singular dictator with multiple agents that concentrate power is not necessarily more efficient. The biggest inefficiency with disproportionate wealth/resource accumulation is that the incentives/competence of the wealthy doesn’t match up with the money they sit on. Note that I am not talking about only billionaires, rich corporations that employ the smartest of humanity is equally culpable. Although venture capital tries to cure this problem, it is only a small percentage of the outbound money of the wealthy.

Think it this way, Apple sits on billions and only innovation we get year after year is slightly thinner devices. Google has tons of billions and machine learning PhDs that work on classifying your cat’s pictures. Elon Musk’s puer aeternus dreams fixate on getting out of the planet instead of fixing it.

For all the power they hold, the innovation and improvements in society we get is abysmal. This is not that different that dictatorial central planning, in which a narcissistic entity thinks they can have the wisdom and competence to manage our collective resources and potential as humanity. (Yes, that is exactly what money is, it is being owed other people’s goods and service should you choose to transact it)

Why do we have to be capped by the best these people can think of? Accumulating wealth and using it wisely turns out to be very different skills, just like getting elected and governing wisely has been.

So billionaires are a source of inefficiency and a part of the market, not a consequence of it because they don’t get out of the market once they are rich. If anything, the more rich they get the larger their participation gets, with all its downsides.

> For all the power they hold, the innovation and improvements in society we get is abysmal.

Please do tell what you would do differently.

That is completely irrelevant, unless you are claiming they are doing absolutely the best that can be done. They are not, and we have a huge headroom. My argument is against singular control points, so I am not suggesting myself or any single person or instuition as a better replacement, I am suggesting not having that concentration of power in the hands of a few in the first place. Kind of like Frodo and co. destroying the ring instead of thinking they can use it for good wisely. In this case nothing is destroyed because money, which expresses goods and services one is owed to, is merely not allowed to concentrate above a certain point. Why does a major chunk of humanity’s goods and services, produced by humanity, is owed to Jeff Bezos etc? It is absurd to assume one person can wield that power properly.

Having billions of dollars is not a magical measure of how much societal good one did or can do. If anything, I would trust anyone who could make billions much less than the average person to use it for good and wise causes.

> getting out of the planet instead of fixing it

https://www.tesla.com/megapack

Indeed. Now imagine how much more of that we could get if he didn’t also obsess about escaping to Mars. His money and attention is a constant sum, anything foolish is going to be replacing something wise.

Antitrust law has more done to slash R&D budgets than anything else in the last 100 years. Look at Bell Labs. Your entire thesis is manifestly wrong.

There's no reason that scale-free at the bottom (small business) entails scale-free at the top (deca-billionaires)