> the shareholder's benefit is to society's benefit
Yes, but there can be other benefits than monetary ones. Besides, I find it rediculous to believe that wealthy people receiving more benefits automatically translates to improvements for the general society.
To add another point: The monetary value these companies create is often only possible because of their monopolistic market distortion. I don't think it can be a net benefit for society when competitors have little to no chance to offer a better product.
> When people suggest regulation they want to control how these companies are acting
That's true. In your original comment you also said "government taking over YouTube" which is why I thought we were talking about complete transfer of control à la planned economy, which is normally not the goal of regulations.
Yes, but there can be other benefits than monetary ones. Besides, I find it rediculous to believe that wealthy people receiving more benefits automatically translates to improvements for the general society.
To add another point: The monetary value these companies create is often only possible because of their monopolistic market distortion. I don't think it can be a net benefit for society when competitors have little to no chance to offer a better product.
> When people suggest regulation they want to control how these companies are acting
That's true. In your original comment you also said "government taking over YouTube" which is why I thought we were talking about complete transfer of control à la planned economy, which is normally not the goal of regulations.