Your argument amounts to billionaire apologism and has nothing to do with my comment.
If a supermarket cannot be profitable in a small village, an investor isn't going to change that. The investor will invest in businesses that can be profitable.
> Your deli guy wouldn't have a job if the FoodCo guy hadn't done what he did.
People have had jobs since before civilization, and certainly before massive accumulation of wealth became the norm.
In capitalist countries, accumulation of wealth comes alongside the prosperity of the rest of the country.
Ah yes, the famous "trickle down" economy of Reaganomics. If only we had more billionaires, then I'm sure I'd be able to afford to get my car fixed.
Unfortunately, this economic model has been proven to be wrong. If it were true, then we would have seen a decreasing gap between the rich and the poor. We didn't.
https://www.statista.com/chart/35953/inequality-wealth-gap-u...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/09/why-is...
> Unfortunately, this economic model has been proven to be wrong.
As I've mentioned several times now, the growth of the wealthy in the 19th century corresponded with the movement of the poor into the middle class.
> If it were true, then we would have seen a decreasing gap between the rich and the poor.
What matters is the state of the poor, not the gap between rich and poor. Musk's wealth, for example, has no effect on my standard of living. Or yours.