I have a question about all the complaints about Elon Musk becoming a trillionaire.
Yes, it's a lot of money (on paper, not sitting in a bank account). Yes, there are real problems that remain unsolved. No amount of money, and no system of government tried thus far, has fixed them. But that's a separate fight.
Here's what I actually don't understand:
When Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute mile in 1954, nobody said "let's make sure he's also the last." Nobody blamed their own slow legs on him. Nobody wrote "Roger Bannister broke the mile, here's how to properly hate him." None of the politicians and regulators stood up to explain why his record was secretly a bad thing.
I get that there's an obvious objection: running fast takes nothing from anyone, but wealth is rivalrous, so therefore the analogy os brplem. But even that isn't true. Bannister didn't win alone - Chataway and Brasher paced him, a track was built, a sport's worth of accumulated training science carried him. We don't say he "took advantage" of his pacers or his coach or the people who built the track. We understand that an exceptional outcome sits on top of a system of other people's effort, and we celebrate the person who reached the frontier despite that (or maybe BECAUSE of that).
So why is that obvious in sport and forbidden in business? The pacer, the coach, the tracklayer, everyone around become "exploited labour". The frontier becomes "greed". The achievement becomes the indictment.
I think you should pick one: either standing on the shoulders of others taints the achievement, in which case go reclaim every world record ever set - or it doesn't, in which case explain what's actually different here. Be specific.
Elon Musk just became the world’s first trillionaire.
Let’s make sure he’s also the last.