Our system rewards value extraction (rent, financial hacks) far more than value creation.
Your rhetorical question provides no value. I want to know how we should decide who should be rewarded, how we can obtain the money to reward them and what benefit does rewarding them in this fashion provide to society.
Sure.
An innovation tax, and a group of cross industry and academic people (e.g. a mix of successful founders, engineers, great researchers, Nobel winners, plus a jury of common folk etc) that decides, every e.g. 5-10 years, who gets to share the money among a shortlist of potential benefactors.
"Hmm, looks like this Turing person did good work in retrospect that hugely helped our society. Let him have $100 million of the $1 billion innovation fund".
Who said that? For one, we can tax people more. For another, we could do a better job on spending the tax money (e.g. stop trillions going to tax cuts or military spending or BS projects).
>Also are we really going to trust some bureaucratic institution to dispense billions of dollars in a fair manner?
I mentioned a panel of non-government successful people, on academy and the market, who votes, not an "institution", much less a "bureaucratic" one.
Not all rewards need be monetary or zero-sum.
Also, one does not reward someone to provide a benefit to oneself. THAT is thinking that creates the greatest inequality in our system if you ask me.
Oh, let me pay this employee... but wait! That money goes right into a retirement account, that invests in an index fund, that supports me and my business partners...
A reward is something given at a COST to another in recognition of their accomplishment. You give it without thought of a return, because what they have done is made your life better.
The fact no one in economics wants to think through the money trail thoroughly doesn't change that the corporation is no longer a provider of services as it's primary goal... It is an enricher of the few who jump on the equity train.