Don't you just hate those billionaires

A challenge here on Twitter that Chloe Swarbrick would love: 

Rock Chartrand chimes in. "Name one? How about a few?":

Rockefeller lowered the cost of kerosene through efficient refining and distribution. 

Ford made automobiles affordable through mass production. 

Carnegie reduced steel production costs through industrial innovation. 

Walton lowered retail prices through bulk purchasing and efficient logistics. 

Dell made computers cheaper by eliminating retail intermediaries. 

Kamprad made furniture affordable through flat-pack manufacturing and distribution. 

Bezos intensified retail competition through Amazon. 

Koum made international messaging practically free through WhatsApp. 

Page and Brin made search, navigation, email, and translation available without direct charges. 

And that's barely scratching the surface. In fact, it would be considerably more challenging to find a billionaire who earned their fortune through voluntary trade without lowering costs, improving quality, increasing productivity, or making something more accessible. 

That's how fortunes are generally made in competitive markets. You create value for others, and the more people you serve, the greater your potential reward. 

You don't even have to buy from these businesses to benefit. Their competitors must improve their offerings or risk losing customers. 

These clout chasers destroy their credibility daily without so much as flinching. They enjoy the accumulated benefits of capitalist innovation while confidently demanding evidence that any of it ever happened. 

The economic illiteracy would be impressive if it weren't so commonplace.

As someone pointed out, it's almost ironic that tis question is trending on the day that Nobel Prize winning economist Bill Nordhaus has passed. After all, it was Nordhaus who reminded us (in summary) that "innovators capture only a tiny share of the fruits of their innovations." 

This shows something about property rights: "If only 4% of gains went to innovators and we got so much innovation, what if property rights were tightened? What if they could appropriate 5% instead? How much more innovation would we get?"

It also shows something about envy. Just imagine if folk weren't so damn keen to slap taxes on innovators ...