Do we need some billionaires?
Do we need some billionaires?
1. Some who create, accumulate, and later use their power and influence to bring about something that completely changes our society's life, for example, Facebook, Amazon, and Elon Musk, to mention the easy 'targets' of our present times.
2. Does an entrepreneur in our society, to change our lives, need a significant amount of money to push their ideas and deserve the billionaire status to be recognised as earned, even if in some parts of their process, their approaches are questionable by our society and personal norms? Is this questionably part of a necessary evil?
3. Can a person or a group of ordinary people, with an 'ordinary' mindset, make a social idea happen without accumulating wealth and influence? Some of us in society point fingers at these billionaires for their status. Is it an atypical mindset found in the approach of these game-changer billionaires? Is this the reason why an ordinary person is unable to undertake significant societal changes? Should these billionaires be recognised for their wealth as a good, intentional reason to make these radical changes happen, and should society understand and accept their sometimes-questionable means of getting where they are? Is money the only real tool in our society's fabric for making changes that really make a difference, and is it not the billionaire's fault, but society's own creation?
4. Are we, the ordinary people, by embracing the change, creating and sustaining these billionaires, by accepting their product? Can we live without their products? Did they make us addicted, or have they cracked the code of giving us what we didn't even know we needed? Note: Answer short, each number, in 2 or 3 paragraphs.
_______________________________________________________________
1. Do we need some billionaires?
We don’t need billionaires as individuals, but we do need mechanisms that allow large-scale coordination, risk-taking, and long-term investment. In today’s system, extreme wealth is one byproduct of successfully scaling ideas that millions adopt. Figures like Bezos or Musk didn’t just invent things; they organized capital, labor, and infrastructure at unprecedented scale.
That said, societal change doesn’t logically require personal billionaire wealth—it requires capacity. Billionaires are one way that capacity currently concentrates, not proof that concentration is inherently necessary or optimal.
2. Does radical entrepreneurship require massive wealth, even with questionable means?
Significant money is often required to move fast, fail repeatedly, and outcompete incumbents. Wealth enables insulation from short-term pressures and gives leverage over systems resistant to change. In that sense, extreme accumulation can function as a tool, not just a reward.
However, questionable practices are not necessary evils—they’re tolerated trade-offs within weakly enforced systems. Society often retroactively legitimizes them because the outcomes feel beneficial, but that doesn’t make the means morally required, only socially excused.
3. Can ordinary people create major change without wealth and influence?
Yes—but usually more slowly, collectively, and with institutional support. Social movements, public health advances, and democratic reforms often come from ordinary people acting together rather than singular visionaries. What they lack in speed and control, they compensate for in legitimacy and resilience.
Billionaires often exhibit atypical traits—risk tolerance, obsession, rule-bending—not superior morality or intelligence. Ordinary people aren’t incapable of change; they’re constrained by systems that reward individual capital over collective action.
4. Are we sustaining billionaires by accepting their products—and are we addicted?
Yes, consumer adoption is the primary source of their power. We collectively reinforce dominance by choosing convenience, price, and network effects, even when alternatives exist. This isn’t pure manipulation—it’s a feedback loop between human preferences and optimized products.
They didn’t force dependency so much as uncover it. They solved real problems in ways that reshaped habits, and now opting out carries personal costs. That doesn’t absolve them—but it does mean billionaires are as much a reflection of societal choices as their cause.
Last question:
5. How great are their products—product quality or execution?
Their products are often good, but rarely great in isolation. Many were not the first or the most elegant solutions; Facebook wasn’t the first social network, Amazon didn’t start with the best website, and Tesla didn’t invent electric cars. What distinguished them was that their products were good enough while continuously improving.
Their real advantage lies in execution: speed, scale, distribution, and relentless iteration. They mastered logistics, platforms, network effects, and customer lock-in—turning ideas into systems that were easy to access, hard to leave, and constantly refined. Success came less from brilliance at the idea stage and more from dominance in implementation.
In short, greatness wasn’t just in the product—it was in the process: how fast they learned, how aggressively they expanded, and how effectively they embedded themselves into everyday life.
___________________________________________________
With Chat GPT