Money locked up in companies is managed at the leisure of its management, regardless of how good that might be for anyone else (ie. the shareholding owners). Money sitting there doing nothing is a poor use of it, so most companies are encouraged to run with only enough working capital to keep operations going.
It sounds weird, but this is better for shareholders and the economy (and companies can raise capital as needed down the line) than having all companies hold 3x the cash on the balance sheet.
The argument would be different for a foundation by wikipedia, albeit you still have problems between what the wikipedia management might want (high wages, little accountability) and everyone else.
> Money locked up in companies is managed at the leisure of its management, regardless of how good that might be for [...] the shareholding owners
But the management is aware that the shareholders can apply (direct or indirect) pressure for the money to be used in certain ways. Ultimately the shareholder can sue the management if they think the money is misused.
It sounds weird, but this is better for shareholders and the economy (and companies can raise capital as needed down the line) than having all companies hold 3x the cash on the balance sheet.
The argument would be different for a foundation by wikipedia, albeit you still have problems between what the wikipedia management might want (high wages, little accountability) and everyone else.