It's not spicy, just silly. Using citizens buying things as the way to flow demand and value through companies that anyone can set up is about as far from power concentration as you can get.
Economics is not separate from politics. Capital compoubds exponentially and extremely unequally as a natural consequence of the free market, and that capital then has power over all of society.
Capital does not compound exponentially. It goes down as well as up, sometimes catastrophically. And what power does it have over society? It's just a way of measuring value. What is the actual power? Purchasing power?
Capital has to compound exponentially on aggregate, because if there is no return on capital, there is no reason to make new capital, and production grinds to a halt. So if it has to grow on aggregate, the fact it sometimes go down merely increases concentration of wealth, as it's then at a discount for those who have greater means.
Capital has power over society because society is reliant on material production. Being able to grant someone enough money that they no longer ever need to work (or merely enough for them to have a decent livelihood) is significant power over them and motivates them to do what you want. You can then use this kind of power over the media, politicians, etc..., and you can struggle to have the rules be to your benefit.
> Capital has to compound exponentially on aggregate, because if there is no return on capital, there is no reason to make new capital, and production grinds to a halt
There is no making new capital, except when governments do it. What you're citing isn't an iron law that forces capital to compound. Investment portfolios compound on average, because smart people pick companies that are doing really useful things (i.e. things people want to pay for) to invest in. But production doesn't stop when that doesn't happen for a company. It also doesn't happen for every investor.
> Capital has power over society because society is reliant on material production. Being able to grant someone enough money that they no longer ever need to work (or merely enough for them to have a decent livelihood) is significant power over them and motivates them to do what you want. You can then use this kind of power over the media, politicians, etc..., and you can struggle to have the rules be to your benefit.
There are far more direct and bad ways to have power and grant people easy lives. Being a noble in a 14th century court, or being in the PolitBuro living the easy life while millions starve in a socialist country are far worse outcomes. Yes, politicians are bribeable (that's why putting less power into government is a good idea) and media is bribeable (that's why working hard on instilling critical thinking into their children is one of the most important duties of a parent), and it all will be far from perfect.
But - as is often the case with such discussions - comparing a system like capitalism with a perfect world that magically has no power and infinite progress is just a fantasy. In reality, rewarding people who do things we want them to do is a good idea. If Netflix has stuff I don't want to watch any more, or breaks for a month, I unsubscribe. If my local government does a terrible job for a year, I keep paying or go to prison. Which of these involves more power, and which involves continued excellent service in exchange for a reward?
No. Because the power just concentrates in the Corporation. And when they become big enough with enough power, then they become the state. If they need roads or towns the build them and run them.
