If you think the debate is purely about relative wealth, you are misunderstanding most of it.

But even still: relative wealth distribution getting too extremely unequal has negative ramifications for any society, regardless of the absolute wealth. But again: that is NOT the issue in this case.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/22/697170790/anti... for more perspective, a bunch of discussion about antitrust issues in big tech and NONE, ZERO, NADA of it is about wealth and money in itself.

Not OP, but my take on that is this: if that industrious 20x / 2x value creator could exist in a vacuum there's no reason to stop them. Im fine even with a 1000x / 1.1x split, ceteris paribus. My problem with aggregation of wealth and power is not with numerical inequality, but with the "evil" that can follow--rent seeking, externalization of costs, monopolization. If the externalities end up 0.5x-ing everyone else's wealth, this is a problem.

You should think in the terms of opportunity cost.

The alternative to what you suggest is not zero growth of wealth. It can be even larger growth of wealth when the markets work better.

The type of anti-markets and pro business approach where big corporations are shielded from the markets and monopoly powers are allowed as long as antitrust felony crimes don't happen is perversion of capitalism. The ideological foundation for this tinking was laid out in Robert Bork's book 'The Antitrust Paradox' (1978) that Reagan administration used as their bible.

Yes, that's what being anticapitalist means.

I'm good at what I do and I work for a hedge fund because they'll compensate me well for it. I increase the productivity of other people at my company, without them doing anything, by giving them better platforms for their work. Chasing salary is the obvious locally rational action for me, but it's inefficient for the world. I could be making life better for the world if I could be funded to work on, say, Debian instead of our in-house build system. And I probably could be funded at about 1/20 of my current salary to do it, and provide 2x productivity benefits for you personally, but the incentives of a capitalist society mean that isn't the right decision for me.

However - you say "using the power of the state to prevent." I am not in favor of that. I am in favor of ceasing using the power of the state to enable. The government could stop recognizing the right of corporations to property and to the labor of individuals at any time.