"First of all, I think most are overestimating the effect - as mentioned, many other countries don't have similar legislation."
Because a USA apple is the same as an EU orange?
That is, do other rules they have make it such that they don't need this rule specifically?
"But, the U.S. has almost a monopoly on Venture Capital, a huge concentration of skilled labor in Silicon Valley, a huge internal market, relatively more lenient regulation and many other advantages."
This relies on your first assertion being true: that little will change.
If bandwidth costs rise dramatically, are folks going to be keen to invest in startups with shortened run-ways?
It's not one startup that's doing well, it's SV culture. It's doing far more than the other sectors of the economy, thus the shake down of the entire network by legacy players (GOP being more heavily funded by elder-statesmen if you will, of Comcast, Koch bros...)
The definition is easy: by market efficiency, people mean time (labor market being the only market Adam Smith concerned himself and invisible hand being a reference to how the people themselves will tacitly protect their own interests).
And right now, the sense is that we're spending a lot of our time in jobs that overwhelmingly benefit a rich minority, which is not time spent well it.
When our ability to focus on self-preservation is being expropriated, people revolt
This interpretation isn't even up for debate, IMO. It's been investigated by biologists, neuroscientists, psychologists, medical doctors, philosophers, logicians, mathematicians, physicists, computer scientists.
A curious omission: economists. Very few of re-known willfully admit their own field is being twisted into undermining the majority for the minority.
The court system isn't suited for this anymore. It was a different time in 1776 when corporations were not allowed to live in perpetuity, amassing as much of the valuable resources as they can, handing it off to ancestors upon the owners death (sounds a bit like monarchism, IMO).
"What your proposing is more like a league which will solidify the rules as they currently exist."
According to Thomas Jefferson, this is exactly what Constitution and laws are for.
Thomas Jefferson:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
"The world" during the high days of the VOC was only 8% of the population today so it's kind of difficult to honestly compare, IMHO.
But more importantly, the VOC "perished under corruption" not because it was dragged to court :) It's not really fair to say that "the system" dealt with it when it obviously just succumbed over time under the inevitability of impermanence.
The Dutch east India company had standing armies and war ships. To say that modern companies are more powerfully merely because of population growth is a bit of a stretch.
How they came to an end is irrelevant to whether courts are effective referees unless you believe the only fair thing is to destroy large companies.
Thomas Jefferson had more direct opinions on corporations, having tried (and failed) to add an 11th amendment limiting their power. For example:
"I hope we shall take warning from the example [of England] and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."
Because a USA apple is the same as an EU orange?
That is, do other rules they have make it such that they don't need this rule specifically?
"But, the U.S. has almost a monopoly on Venture Capital, a huge concentration of skilled labor in Silicon Valley, a huge internal market, relatively more lenient regulation and many other advantages."
This relies on your first assertion being true: that little will change.
If bandwidth costs rise dramatically, are folks going to be keen to invest in startups with shortened run-ways?
It's not one startup that's doing well, it's SV culture. It's doing far more than the other sectors of the economy, thus the shake down of the entire network by legacy players (GOP being more heavily funded by elder-statesmen if you will, of Comcast, Koch bros...)