> The statement you made about google issuing more shares has nothing to do with my logic and is completely irrelevant.
Your logic is that shares are money, but companies can print shares, which would imply that they could print money.
The shares are only valuable because they represent the company. The value in the shares isn't independent or duplicative of the value of the company. If the company burned to the ground then the shares would be worthless too -- it's the same wealth, and as long as the resources are invested in the corporation, it's the corporation that has control over it.
You're trying to make a lot out of the fact that the owners could sell their shares, but there are two reasons that doesn't do it. The first is, that doesn't come into play unless they actually do sell their shares. But if they did that in practice and spent the money (not just move it to another investment security) then we wouldn't be having this debate because then they would no longer be billionaires.
And the second is that they can't actually do that at scale, because in order for that to happen, you would need somebody else to buy the shares from them, which would mean that that person would have to commit an equivalent amount of resources which then couldn't be used for some other purpose. As long as Amazon exists, it necessary that somebody be foregoing their own use of an Amazon-sized quantity of wealth.
> When you buy something with money, the same thing happens - the amount of wealth held by both parties doesn’t change unless the goods are overpriced or are consumed.
The most relevant part of that being consumed, because that's what the disposition of resources is really about. Trading one investment for another is still investment -- and investment in corporations is giving control of your resources to someone else. Actual spending is consumption. You burn fuel or use electricity. You pay a person to do a job and their time is consumed and can't be used for something else. You occupy some land that then nobody else can use at the same time. Those are the things that actually matter to people and affect the world, not whether Jeff Bezos owns shares of Amazon and Larry Page owns shares of Google or vice versa.
What I'm getting at here is that if you want to reallocate resources from adtech to something else, it is actually necessary to deallocate it from adtech, not just sell your shares in the adtech company to somebody else so that the same total amount of resources are allocated to adtech but now it's somebody else's name on the documents. If the same amount of labor continues to be spent on targeting ads, that labor is not being spent on curing cancer, regardless of whether ownership of the shares changes hands.