I agree that concentration of power is corrupting (this is a general rule). But if the power is held by a dumb algorithm that simply invests and divests based on simple rules (i.e. an index fund), and IF this preserves most of the benefits seen in a free market economy (big "if" there), then that would seem to sidestep much of the concern about centralized corruption.
That said, I see some strong concerns with this approach:
1) Is this dumb algorithm easy to game by virtue of being so simple?
2) Is it possible for a tyrant that gains power to turn this passive equity into concrete control over the economy organizations?
3) (Probably most germane in the context of the OP), if the majority of the economy is owned by passive investment vehicles, would there be market competition any more? Or would high-risk investment capital dry up, to the detriment of startups and small businesses, and causing the economy to be less efficient overall?
This last concern also applies directly to Altman's American Equity proposal, at least to the strong version where most of the US GDP is tied up in the program. It's possible that the weak version (where a small chunk of the GDP is in the program) would be positive, while the strong version would be harmful.
I don't possess enough Econ expertise to have a strong opinion here, but would be interested to hear others' thoughts on this.
Also, perhaps we should call this concept something other than "Communism", since it only partially overlaps with that ideology; Communism explicitly identifies the "working class" and "capitalist class", and describes the exploitation of one by the other. While the outcome described by American Equity looks like the Communist endgame, in that wealth is collectivized, it is also quite different in many other ways, specifically the preservation of free markets, property, etc.
That said, I see some strong concerns with this approach:
1) Is this dumb algorithm easy to game by virtue of being so simple?
2) Is it possible for a tyrant that gains power to turn this passive equity into concrete control over the economy organizations?
3) (Probably most germane in the context of the OP), if the majority of the economy is owned by passive investment vehicles, would there be market competition any more? Or would high-risk investment capital dry up, to the detriment of startups and small businesses, and causing the economy to be less efficient overall?
This last concern also applies directly to Altman's American Equity proposal, at least to the strong version where most of the US GDP is tied up in the program. It's possible that the weak version (where a small chunk of the GDP is in the program) would be positive, while the strong version would be harmful.
I don't possess enough Econ expertise to have a strong opinion here, but would be interested to hear others' thoughts on this.
Also, perhaps we should call this concept something other than "Communism", since it only partially overlaps with that ideology; Communism explicitly identifies the "working class" and "capitalist class", and describes the exploitation of one by the other. While the outcome described by American Equity looks like the Communist endgame, in that wealth is collectivized, it is also quite different in many other ways, specifically the preservation of free markets, property, etc.