WASHINGTON, DC—“There’s a certain level of wealth and accumulation that is unearned. You
can’t earn a billion dollars. You just can’t earn that.” So claimed Representative Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive superstar from New York who is attracting presidential buzz. Her
fellow New York progressive, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, would agree. He seems to think that
billionaires with second homes in New York City aren’t pulling their weight. Meanwhile, a
proposed wealth tax in California seems to be motivated by a similar mindset.
How to explain this sense that billionaires are taking from society rather than contributing to it?
Part of the reason is a lack of imagination. Michael Jordan (net worth: $4.3 billion), LeBron
James ($1.4 billion), Taylor Swift ($2 billion), Steven Spielberg ($7.1 billion), J.K. Rowling
($1.2 billion), and Jerry Seinfeld ($1.1 billion) are very wealthy, but you don’t hear many
complaints about it. Is that simply because the value they add to society is relatively easy to see?
Perhaps. But the value-added from successful entrepreneurs isn’t much more opaque.
Bill Gates($102.8 billion) is very wealthy, but he has also made hundreds of millions of workers more
productive by creating ever-better software. And because they are more productive, their wages
are higher than they would have been without access to Microsoft software. On the consumer
side of the ledger, Larry Page ($314.9 billion) and Sergey Brin ($290.4 billion) revolutionized
internet search, mapping technology, and email—giving away services that hundreds of millions
of Americans and others value at much more than the $0 cost to them.
Ocasio-Cortez isn’t having it. “You can get market power, you can break rules … you can abuse
labor laws, you can pay people less than what they’re worth, but you can’t earn that” kind of
wealth, she insists. But she is merely clarifying the failure of imagination at play. The primary
issue seems not to be that some social contributions are more obscure than those of, say, George
Lucas ($5.2 billion). Rather, Ocasio-Cortez seems to assume that the economy is a zero-sum
game, in which the only way for your income to rise is for mine to fall.
But this assumption is patently false. Wealthy people are wealthy not because they have taken
from others, but because they have generated new wealth and kept a small slice for themselves.
When the Nobel laureate economist William D. Nordhaus studied the returns to innovation, he
concluded that innovators capture “only a miniscule fraction”—2.2%—of the benefits they
create. Using this estimate, Jeff Bezos’s $273 billion net worth implies that he has created $12.7
trillion of value for the rest of society.
We got a great deal. Because of Bezos’s innovation, I no longer have to lug around a half dozen
books on long trips; I can just take my Kindle. Like millions of Americans, my wife and I spend
far less time driving to physical stores than we used to. And because the goods we buy on
Amazon are less expensive than those in physical stores, the purchasing power of our household
income has risen.
Mamdani, for his part, recently singled out the hedge-fund billionaire Ken Griffin when gleefully
announcing his proposed tax on pied-à-terre properties valued above $5 million. “As mayor, I
believe everyone has a role to play in contributing to our city,” Mamdani said. “And some, a
little bit more than others.”
Well. Griffin and his firm, Citadel, contribute much more to New York than the average citizen,
though perhaps in ways that are less obvious than the creators of Amazon and Google Maps.
According to a memo by Citadel’s chief operating officer, the firm’s New York employees paid
$2.3 billion in city and state taxes over the past five years. A proposed $6 billion Park Avenue
office project for Citadel would require 6,000 construction jobs. (And Griffin himself has
donated $650 million to philanthropic causes in New York.)
Moreover, like tech entrepreneurs, hedge-fund managers create value that accrues to all of
society. Apart from building projects and tax revenue, firms like Citadel help to ensure that
capital is allocated efficiently throughout the economy, which ultimately makes workers
throughout the entire economy more productive, increasing their wages and living standards.
By contrast, Ocasio-Cortez and Mamdani’s ideas could harm the workers they claim to care
about. After all, Griffin is expanding his operations in Florida in part because he is concerned
that New York’s desire to target the affluent will escalate, and several prominent tech executives
from California have recently staked claims in Florida as well.
Of course, if New York and California lose their competitive edge, that will be bad for New
Yorkers and Californians, though not necessarily for the country as a whole. But prominent
national leaders in both parties have also grown more hostile to the wealthy. On the populist-
nationalist right, Steve Bannon has called for a “massive tax increase on billionaires,” while on
the populist-progressive left, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren proposes a tax on “the
ultra-rich.”
Such proposals always come with arguments about the economic game being rigged against
typical workers and households, with the rich taking from the middle class and the poor. This is
dangerous nonsense. The game is not rigged. In the US economy, people receive their just
rewards. Compensation is primarily determined by productivity—effort, risk-taking, skills, and
choices. Billionaires have outsize wealth primarily because the market value of their economic
contributions to society warrants it.
We should celebrate their success as a message to young people. We should want more
billionaires, not fewer—certain in the knowledge that they give much more to society than they
take from it.
Michael R. Strain, Director of Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute,
is the author, most recently, of The American Dream Is Not Dead (But Populism Could Kill
It) (Templeton Press, 2020).
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2026.
The dazzles and pitfalls of Nigeria’s banking recapitalisation