Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest

There is no need to be the best, either. Look at an ecosystem. Do organisms need to try to be the "best"? Of course not.

Businesses are similar to organisms. They compete in an ecosystem to convert syntropy to entropy.

I think in a Jevon situation where there is a game-changing technology jump in a consumable commodity, there will be pent-up demand being expressed at the same time better efficiency means prices can decline and profits can rise simultaneously. This can be more sustainable if these factors are better in balance to begin with and stay that way. The improved efficiency is then enjoyed and absorbed into the regular operation of everyone involved and soon or eventually becomes the new normal. Ideally the companies never need to go back to the old normal which may likely not be very economically viable any more so that becomes completely forgotten.

But with growth beyond a certain point, cash flow becomes so significant and so many fewer people are handling it that the room for misguided actions, not just unforseen but often hidden or obscured, can quickly overcome the profits from much earlier technology milestones which took much longer for the entire org to implement. Which can not be replaced unless more technology breakthroughs are forthcoming, but even when a steady stream of excellent new technology keeps coming down the pipeline it could still be a sinking ship. Then if only the top people think it's not seaworthy, or know what they've done that might make it so, they're going to completely deceive the rest of the crew as effectively as possible or all the lifeboats could be used up.

When it comes to building cash flow, profits, shareholder value, and overall company valuation not every economically sensible executive is going to pursue or achieve the same balance among these, regardless of motivation.

When a company originally thrives because the early talent can make profits that are good, it can be the firm foundation for what could be long-term, even exponential growth.

Later leadership which does not always have equal talent for profits will often have more experience utilizing cash flow itself to substitute as a resource for bonuses, dividends, and things like that when much needed technology boosts are not the windfall they once were.

The net effect is people make money for a while then the technology is wasted.

Because profits actually weren't pursued enough, and cash flow too much instead

Like when a huge company acquires a rapidly-progressing technology group but no more progress occurs after that, or progress becomes intentionally discontinued or even reversed.

Like a gravitational field so massive that it draws in other planets and absorbs their potential for continued growth, rather than leveraging progress using the overwhelming resources.

A smallco that made excellent profits primarily from innovation itself, looks excellent on paper because it is actually a good acquisition target. When absorbed into a bigco their impressive profits no longer add up to more than a drop in the huge bucket so focus ends up being placed elsewhere besides the profit-making innovation that was supposed to be so promising.

http://SmartestMan.Ca/bankmath explains that interest is not usury when paid at the beginning of the contract, only usury when collection is attempted at the end. If you borrow 100 and at the end, owe 110, you can't pay it back. that creates a mort-gage death-gamble where not all can pay. If you borrow 100, pay the interest right away, you owe 100 and have 90 and the banker has 10 with which to buy your products and let you pay the bank back. Musical chairs with money only happens when you leave the interest to turn into usury at the end of the game.

> That the Roman Empire was to some extent decentralized doesn't matter though - they had all of the power and were able to extract all of the surpluses from their vassal states.

Yes it matter, because it means you can't treat it as a singular entity. It never acted as one. The success of an emperor depended to a great deal on squeezing just hard enough to not give anyone designs on thinking they could do entirely as they pleased, yet not so hard it'd trigger rebellions. There was no capability to prevent all kinds of slack in the system in every layer.

They had "absolute direct power" as long as it was only ever exercised with restraint, or in limited areas.

> 1) Since when did the Roman Emperors or the Feudal Nobility have any responsibility?

Read the rest of what I wrote. The point is not that there was an explicit, stated responsibility, but that it is inherent in that those who mismanaged their workforce faced a declining workforce. You point out yourself that a large proportion of Rome's inhabitants were actual property. Let them die, and the value of your property and the profits you can extract from it goes down. You had no ready source of replacement. A feudal lord facing increasing demands for tributes could not meet it if he let his labour force die, because it's not like he could take out an ad and have a flood of new workers arrive.

That is the relationship that capitalism removed. That does not mean the feudal system was good. It was awful, and capitalism was a distinct improvement. But it means a fundamental change in the extent to which the parties could afford to attempt to extract maximal value from their workers at all cost, and that was a key driver in making capitalism viable until further automation and expansion into new markets made it less worthwhile to fight to retain that pressure. But the dissolution of those bonds remain, and it means the dynamics of how capitalism deal with growth are very different - for both good and bad.

> 2) Again the Adam Smith: you're not counting surpluses. Economies create vast amounts of consumer surpluses. Whatever the capitalists are able to hoard away in their bank accounts is small in comparison to the value created by consumer surpluses.

Surpluses are only relevant as long as you have money to access them. As such, talking of surpluses is irrelevant without addressing what happens to pressure on employment and wages once growth hits a wall. This is the main point of Marx criticism of capitalism: That capitalism does create vast amount of additional value - he was a massive fan, expressing absolute awe at the possibilities capitalism created - but the inherent competitive pressure in capitalism means that capitalism will eventually start to eat away at the need for labour. That's a good thing for society in the long run. But in the short run, it means addressing how to ensure access.

> It's not a paradox that people are immensely more wealthy in capitalism despite however 'unequal' the distribution of accumulated wealth is.

You're right, it's not, because capitalism still has room for growth, during which it has no incentive to squeeze everything it can out of efficiency improvements.

It has no relevance, however, to the question of what happens once further growth is impossible and competitive pressures have to turn inwards and focus on eliminating labor to squeeze out ever thinner margins (remember, Adam Smith also argued that profits were "always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin"; high margins are a sign of inefficient competition)

I don't think it's just a case of a few people. Rent-seeking by itself is morally neutral, like guns. Like a gun, it's how you use it that determines if you're contributing positive value to overall society.

The purpose of the economy is also not the accumulation of wealth by a few people. Having lots of money is nice but it turns out it's nowhere near the most important thing in life.