This list has many omissions, of course, but it's directionally accurate. And illustrates a few things.
1) You don't need a US visa to make it anymore. 2) Billionaires will exist no matter what the US government does. Millionaires too. 3) Asia isn't the future, it's the present.
Therefore slogans like "billionaires should not exist" or "every billionaire is a policy failure" actually stem from an outdated American chauvinist view of the world.
No US policy can now stop the founders of the world from finally rising. Because wealth is decentralizing.
With 2700+ billionaires today, and only 46 presidents in all of US history, it's actually much more feasible to become a billionaire than to become president. It's still hard, but it's also globally open in a way the presidency isn't: ~96% of the world wasn't born in the US.
As such, "anyone can become a billionaire" is much more true than "anyone can become president".
There are thousands of billionaires around the world, but only one US president, and that president must themselves come from the ~4% of global population born in the US.
This rebuts the idea that economic ambition is unrealistic. It's actually more realistic than political ambition, as it's not zero-sum.
Also, usually the people recycling Steinbeck's brickbat are themselves temporarily embarrassed politicians.
This is a possible scenario by ~2040: Centralized China vs International India. Surveillance state vs decentralized digital diaspora. Two rising powers, with very different cultures.
The US may be like the declining British Empire, whose dominance in 1913 was gone by 1945.
The conventional wisdom is that we are gearing up for a multi-decade conflict between the US and China.
But what if the US gets KO’d in the first round, by military defeat abroad and inflation at home, followed by civil conflict and/or a national divorce?
The various versions of the elephant graph show the phenomenon of the ascending and descending class.
Roughly speaking, most of the world along with the global elite has been economically gaining in recent years, while the Western middle class has not. brookings.edu/research/whats…
Sean McMeekin's latest tour-de-force makes a strong case that Stalin should be thought of as the main actor in WW2 — not Hitler or the US. amazon.com/dp/B08F6Z72Q4
One angle he goes into that I hadn't seen elsewhere is that the Soviets *wanted* the Japanese and Americans to fight.
Makes sense, given the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 and the 1939 Soviet/Japanese war in Manchuria! But not that widely discussed. thediplomat.com/2012/08/the-fo…
He unearths some amazing quotes, which of course make sense, but are a new angle on things.
Even under Lenin, the Soviets *wanted* the Japanese to fight the Americans, and the Euros to fight each other. Then they'd roll in and install communism. Which is kind of what happened...
Oh, so you think the founder of a huge company might know something? Their success was survivorship bias. Dumb luck! As we all know, Zuck just flipped a coin and this datacenter appeared.
This is in response to the common trope that successful entrepreneurs were just "lucky". There are so many micro-decisions involved in building a company that it'd be quite a trick to simply random walk your way to infinity.
Chance certainly plays a role in many contests, and to a greater degree in investing than entrepreneurship, but to even be in the game in the first place requires some skill.
Put another way: missing one shot is luck, being in the NBA after making many shots is skill.
We're transitioning from fiat information — it's true because this august institution said so! — to cryptoinformation, which is truth anyone can computationally verify.