I’m saying if you make political decisions that hurt this or that company (or all of them) you actually hurt normal people rather than “the 1%” who supposedly pull all the strings.
The rising tide may not lift all boats but it lifts a lot of them.
I don’t want to hurt anyone. I think the people at the top of the economic pie generally know what they are doing, have grown their capital because they have earned it via expertise, and making political decisions to hurt the rich ultimately hurts all of society more than the rich person.
Take Elon Musk. Even if you stole all of his money, he would start a new business, and people would back him with capital (whatever is left after the socialists stole it all) because of his background, and it would be successful, and he would be rich again.
You can’t stop talented people from making money unless you use guns.
I'd say this is a fundamental misreading of Musk. He's a good hype man, who started rich, got richer and became famous. Him starting over would be simply that he's famous and so is better at being famous and generating hype than someone who isn't already famous.
The thing is - basically being a grifter is a great skill for making money for oneself and friends, but not actually a skill that helps society as a whole. And sure, advertising is a kind of expertise, but I don't think many people actually hold it in high regard as being worth a lot in terms of "deserving".
He built Paypal, then Tesla, then SpaceX. People who think that he isn't an incredible entrepreneur and operator clearly don't know anything about building businesses. Regardless of how he started out, dismissing his accomplishments as a "grifter" or "hype man" shows you have very little understanding whatsoever.
Minor correction: SpaceX came before Tesla. Elon started hanging out with the Mars Society people after Paypal. Probably more impressive to take your exit cash and go “okay, how much to go to Mars?”
The rising tide may not lift all boats but it lifts a lot of them.