I mean it’s trivial to float a scheme in which Jeff Bezos’ max net worth taps out at $100 million and then you have to commit to the idea that no, not only this dude but no one will bother starting a new venture if they can only earn 10% of a billion from it; then since essentially nobody earns that much why the hell does everyone else still go to work.
It’s not that nobody would start ventures.
It’s that when those ventures have produced $100 million of value to the world, they’d stop.
I don’t know when Bezos crossed the $100 million mark, but I do know that I’ve used Amazon this week, so I’d be rather cross with any scheme that killed it in 2007 because somebody was annoyed that a company that produced enormous value was incentivized to provide even more value.
why would they stop? if Bezos gets hit by a bus tomorrow does Amazon shutdown?
Of course not, he sold off the assets when his net worth + the expected value of the assets equalled $100 mil.
Or are we positing our current world, where companies are structured differently because they can keep making money?
EDIT: You sound like a Go analyst who wonders when AlphaGo decides to forsake large territories – the explanation is simple enough: AlphaGo isn’t trying to make as large a territory as possible, it’s trying to be as certain as possible of winning by at least half a point, which does not create the same strategies as “make as many points as possible.” If companies were only allowed to make $100 mil for each of their investors, they’d make a lot of choices very very differently from companies tasked with making “as much money as possible.”