If the problem is over-concentration of wealth, the solution must be deconcentration.
If the problem is an unbalance of the centripetal forces on money in the economy, the solution must be to strengthen the centrifugal forces.
But deconcentration and centrifugation sound like types of redistribution. And redistribution always suffers from the problem, "Who decides?"
Milton Friedman correctly answers this question with, "Let the market decide" where "the market" is the closest thing we have in economics to the concept of "nature" in the biological sciences. How can we "let the market decide" in a case of comprehensive redistribution in a centrifugal direction like this?
Suppose there was a way to substitute reinvestment for redistribution. Suppose we don't really need to raise the question of "who decides?" even as much as the question of "How invest more?" would require.*
And suppose this relatively high level of reinvestment could be automated = determined dynamically by some market-set factor or phenomenon.
Then all we need is to identify that phenomenon.**
* From this viewpoint, it appears that we already have a redistribution system - run by the rich, and they are making mistake after mistake in their discretionary investment activities. It follows that investment is too important to leave completely to the discretionary caprice of a subset of the market, especially when it starts getting shrunk by the concentration of wealth. This may constitute another key to the question, At what point in the concentration of wealth in the evolution of an economy of whatever level does it turn negative and self-defeating.
** Our initial best candidate = the incidence of overtime, plus its duration and intensity.