I’ll admit it; I love politics. I enjoy the open debate between people with diverse points of view, the strategic art of persuasion, and yes, even the soap opera that elections often become.
Of particular interest to me recently has been the meteoric rise of Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old socialist who just last week became the presumptive Democratic nominee for Mayor of New York City. Defeating more established figures such as former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani is now the odds-on favorite to win the general election this fall.
This past weekend, during an appearance on Meet the Press, he said something that deeply concerned me: he stated, in no uncertain terms, that he does not believe billionaires should exist. While such a sentiment may be expected from a self-described socialist, it’s troubling to hear someone with that worldview gaining traction, especially in New York City, the financial capital of the world.
The reality is that eliminating wealth does not eliminate poverty. In fact, history shows it often makes things worse.
One of the most glaring examples of this is the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. In the name of equality, Vladimir Lenin and his fellow Marxists sought to eliminate the bourgeois elite by seizing property and businesses. What followed was not justice or shared prosperity, but mass poverty and the establishment of a totalitarian regime ruled by a new political elite.
In the 21st century, similar failures can be seen in Zimbabwe and Venezuela. In Zimbabwe, under Robert Mugabe, forced land redistribution and the expulsion of experienced (mostly white) farmers decimated agricultural output. What was intended to empower the poor led instead to hyperinflation, widespread famine, and economic collapse.
Closer to home, in Venezuela under Hugo Chávez, the country embraced a form of 21st-century socialism, emphasizing wealth redistribution and state control. Like Mamdani, Chávez promised to reduce inequality by limiting concentrated wealth and increasing government programs. But what began as a vision of fairness spiraled into one of the worst humanitarian and economic crises in modern history, not because of a lack of resources, but due to centralized control, poor economic management, and authoritarianism masquerading as equity.
I genuinely understand why these messages resonate. It’s human nature to envy those who have more, or to believe their success is unfair or undeserved. But the reality is that billionaires in America often drive the very economic engine that benefits the rest of us.
Most don’t start with vast fortunes; they start with an idea. Through hard work, risk-taking, and perseverance, they build something that grows the economy, creates jobs, and offers value to millions.
From Bill Gates and Steve Jobs pioneering the computer age, to Jeff Bezos transforming how we shop, to Mark Zuckerberg connecting billions around the globe, billionaires generate benefits far beyond their personal bank accounts. Their companies serve consumers, employ millions, support small businesses, and generate tax revenue that funds everything from roads to education. In fact, if you are retired or hope to in the future you can likely thank companies founded by billionaires for providing the investment growth you need to make it possible.
While it’s reasonable to scrutinize wealth concentration and ensure fair play, calling for the elimination of billionaires risks tearing down the very systems of innovation and opportunity that lift people up. The real challenge isn’t that billionaires exist; it’s making sure the system allows more people to become them.
When that happens, we all win.
(Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The advice is general in nature and not intended for specific situations)