History has actually tested this question quite extensively, and the overwhelming result is that, on aggregate, an entity where power is distributed is more successful than an entity where power is concentrated. Setting up Nvidia like Meta or Tesla might have been the best thing for Jensen, but clearly wouldn’t have been the best thing for Nvidia. And, quite frankly, over the past few years those other two are pretty good examples of why.
You're missing the point of the commenter which is that neoliberal social order confounds the empirical evidence. The framing of "x approach is better for a company's success" is a non-question, it is beside the point. Distribution of power "under neoliberalism" is a self contradictory model.
You don't have to agree with leftists but ignoring the premise just lets you talk past the point.
> if he set himself up in the same way as his competitors, he would have been fine.
Jensen chose to set up his company in such a way that he had to follow a superset of the rules that his competitors did. My point is that was a competitive advantage; even though it unmade him, that superset was a necessary tradeoff to be the head of a $4T company. We can see this because those other companies have started to be held financially accountable; the same lack of accountability that lets those leaders get away with affairs also lets them “get away with” withholding evidence (and the resulting $243M punitive damages). Unaccountable power (which is what parent is arguing for) is brittle and fragile.