WHY ADMIRE BILLIONAIRES RATHER THAN REGULATING THEM?

 

Across many cultures today, ultra-wealthy individuals are often lionized as self-made heroes even while real-world inequality deepens. Surveys suggest that most people distrust the super-rich and favor taxing them, yet media and public discourse still celebrate billionaire success stories. Americans in particular have long “affix[ed] to [billionaires] mythical statuses,” calling them “geniuses” and “modern-day heroes” for supposedly driving innovation and growth. 

Historical Roots of Billionaire Admiration

The modern cult of the entrepreneur has deep roots in 19th-century industrialism and liberal ideology. During the Gilded Age, titans like Rockefeller and Carnegie amassed huge fortunes under an almost entirely unregulated economy. They justified their status using Social Darwinist ideas and the “Gospel of Wealth,” which held that unfettered competition and inheritance of success were natural. As historian Sidney Mintz notes, thinkers like Herbert Spencer explicitly “justified laissez-faire capitalism, competition and social stratification” (e.g. Darwinian competition among firms). This laissez-faire ethos became embedded in American popular culture, portraying “robber barons” as pioneers rather than villains. Even when income gaps grew enormous, many accepted that wealth signaled virtue or ability.

The mid-20th century briefly tempered this narrative with stronger social welfare in many countries, but by the 1980s the hero status of wealthy capitalists returned with a vengeance. Leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher celebrated entrepreneurs as capitalist heroes, promising that tax cuts and deregulation would unleash prosperity. In Reagan’s words, “Freedom and incentives unleash the drive and entrepreneurial genius that are the core of human progress”. Yet as one analysis observes, this era’s free-market ideology was highly contradictory: it claimed to champion entrepreneurs but in practice rigged policies in favor of incumbents and the very rich. In short, 20th-century neoliberal reforms enshrined the myth that billionaires “made it” purely by brilliance and hard work. These historical ideas — from Gilded Age social Darwinism to modern free-market religion — helped foster lasting admiration for self-made billionaires and ideological resistance to regulation.

Sociocultural Factors

Several cultural myths and media narratives underlie the admiration of the ultra-wealthy:

• Meritocracy and the “American Dream.” Many people sincerely believe the economy is (or should be) a pure meritocracy. By this logic, billionaires must be exceptionally talented and industrious, since they “skyrocket to the top of the heap”. In the U.S. and elsewhere, the idea that anyone can become rich through grit and smarts — the classic rags-to-riches story — remains powerful. As one scholar notes, public attitudes toward the rich hinge on perceived origin: if wealth comes from “competence and hard work” rather than inheritance, people deem the rich deserving. Such beliefs are amplified by campaigns celebrating self-made success. Americans in particular “convince [themselves] that [billionaires] got to where they are through grit, determination, brilliance, [and] flashes of startling insight”. In short, meritocratic myths cast billionaires as modern-era pioneers who earned public admiration by ostensibly outperforming everyone else.

• Media narratives and celebrity culture. Newspapers, magazines, and social media relentlessly broadcast the lifestyles and platitudes of billionaires. Business profiles often highlight a founder’s humble habits or philanthropic pledges — think Warren Buffett’s frugality or Bill Gates at a burger stand — implying that immense wealth is compatible with ordinary virtues. Listicles (“Bill Gates woke up at 5 am” or “Bill McDermott’s 10 habits”) urge readers to imitate these figures, linking billionaire traits with success. Moreover, the rich themselves actively shape these stories. Analyses of media interviews find that wealthy entrepreneurs emphasize hard work and family lineage when justifying their fortunes. By underscoring personal sacrifice and “temporally tying success to family legacy”, billionaires and their media allies reinforce the narrative that their wealth is legitimate and merit-based. In short, the media both construct and reflect a hero narrative around billionaires, helping the public see them as knowledgeable visionaries rather than outliers of unfair advantage.

• Philanthropy and “good billionaire” narratives. Philanthropic giving also bolsters public esteem. When billionaires establish high-profile charities or take the Giving Pledge, the media spotlight often focuses on their donations rather than the wealth being concentrated in the first place. As one commentator observes, billionaires “want to explain that … obtaining a billion dollars was simply a pleasant side effect” of their efforts to “help other people rather than helping themselves”. These “theodicies” for wealth — essentially just-so stories that justify inequality — reassure the public that billionaires’ riches serve societal good. By framing themselves as generous stewards or job-creators, the ultra-wealthy tap into cultural respect for philanthropy and entrepreneurship, earning admiration even from skeptics.

These sociocultural factors combine into a potent mix. People are psychologically inclined to see social hierarchies as fair, often avoiding the “cognitive dissonance” of believing in an unfair system. Adoring billionaires gives a sense that economic outcomes are justified by effort, which is comforting. In addition, vicarious envy plays a role: indulging in billionaire aspirational stories (homes, space flights, yachts) provides a thrill. Consequently, even amid rising inequality, many citizens choose to admire the ultra-rich because doing so fits ingrained beliefs about success.

Political and Economic Power

While culture helps explain admiration, it is the economic and political power of billionaires that makes them hard to regulate. Wealth concentration has translated directly into political influence, further tilting the playing field in their favor. Comprehensive studies find that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy”. In practice, this means a single billionaire’s agenda (or a network of rich donors) often outweighs the preferences of average voters. Campaign-finance rules in many countries are weak, allowing the ultra-wealthy to flood elections with money. A recent analysis notes the “wealthification” of politics, where “weakened campaign finance laws” let the ultra-rich have “outsized influence on elections through massive, often undisclosed contributions.”. In short, billionaires can and do “buy democracy” – or at least lobby it fiercely – while ordinary citizens have little voice.

One clear sign of this power is that billionaires often enter politics directly. A new political science study finds that over 11% of the world’s billionaires have held or sought political office, usually targeting high-level positions. They tend to win when they run and are overwhelmingly conservative in orientation. Moreover, the study reports that billionaire candidates appear far more often under authoritarian regimes than in robust democracies: “billionaires formally enter the political sphere at a much higher rate in autocracies than in democracies.”. This suggests a reinforcing loop: where governance is weak, billionaires step in as de facto rulers, further displacing regulation. Even in established democracies, billionaires often exercise power through media ownership, think tanks, and close ties to incumbent politicians. The result is a regulatory inertia: proposals like wealth taxes or antitrust measures face well-funded opposition, while promises of “trickle-down” solutions excuse inaction.

The economic power of billionaires also works subtly. By concentrating industries, they can lobby for rules that cement their dominance (weaker competition laws, higher barriers to entry, lower taxes). As one commentator notes of the Reagan/Thatcher era, the free-market ideology “served as a convenient smokescreen for policies that favored incumbents.” Governments claimed to reduce regulation but often “re-rigged [the economy] in favor of the wealthy and the powerful”. In effect, when billionaires influence policy, societies regulate themselves less, trusting the market yet ending up with rigid economic hierarchies.

Finally, broad wealth inequality itself dampens pressure for reform. When the top 1% control roughly 40% of national wealth and the top 10% control 60–70%, this elite has the resources to resist taxation or stricter rules. Congressional Budget Office data make it clear: in the U.S. today the richest 10% hold about 60% of all wealth, while the bottom half holds only ~6%. (The pattern is similar in Europe: about 70% of the U.K.’s wealth is in the top decile, 60–65% in France.) When so much power is concentrated, there is little institutional force strong enough to regulate effectively. In practice, admiration and deference pay off for billionaires with continued influence, so most political establishments prefer pliability over confrontation.

Global Variations

The general pattern of billionaire worship with light regulation appears worldwide, though with regional nuances. In the United States, the mix of a deeply ingrained entrepreneurial mythology and weak political constraints makes admiration especially pronounced. Social surveys may show distrust, but public campaigns (and even presidential rallies) often feature tech and finance billionaires as star figures. Even proposals to tax fortunes are politically fraught, partly because of moneyed interests.

In Western Europe, strong social-democratic traditions mean the rhetoric around billionaires is somewhat more mixed. Many Europeans view extreme wealth with suspicion, and high taxes on inheritance or income are common. Nevertheless, Europe has seen rising wealth concentration that fuels both admiration and anger. Research shows that Europeans primarily regard the rich as “deserving” only if they earned it through work or talent. While Europeans debate limits on capitalism, the same media culture exalts tech and business leaders (e.g. covering EU tech founders or billionaire philanthropists) in aspirational terms. (For instance, UK and French top deciles hold over 60% of wealth, and rich elites there lobby and influence policy much as in the U.S.) Thus, even in Europe the pull of the meritocratic myth bolsters admiration.

In emerging economies, attitudes vary. In India, for example, leading tycoons like Mukesh Ambani or Ratan Tata are often portrayed as national builders; their private wealth is linked to patriotic industrial growth. Public debates about them swing between pride in job creation and accusations of cronyism, but outright populist regulation is rare. In China, the state curated early success stories of entrepreneurs (Jack Ma was once an idol of innovation) but has more recently cracked down on tech oligarchs to assert Party control. This shows a different dynamic: the government prefers to limit billionaires when their power seems to threaten the official ideology. Nevertheless, even in China’s state-controlled media billionaires were long showcased as evidence of China’s modern economy (until politics intervened).

Elsewhere, authoritarian states often see billionaires as extensions of the regime (think Russian oligarchs or Middle Eastern princes) – people to be both envied and controlled, not taxed. In Latin America and Africa, the numbers of ultra-rich are smaller, but where they exist (say Brazil’s moguls or Nigeria’s Dangote) they command outsized influence and often public hero status for financing development projects. Across the globe, though cultural attitudes toward wealth vary, a common thread is that wealth still signals authority and success in some way, which tends to generate deference. In many cases, the lack of strong institutional checks means billionaires can maintain their status with minimal regulation, whether through political ties, media control, or ideological dominance.

Conclusion

In sum, societies today too often celebrate billionaires despite the threats posed by concentrated wealth. Historical inertia has fused wealth with virtue in popular imagination, while media narratives and billionaire PR reinforce the self-made myth. Culturally, we place trust in meritocratic tales and aspirational models, which leads many to want to admire billionaires. At the same time, billionaire money translates into political influence and regulatory weak links, so that systematic control remains elusive. The result is a curious world: even as inequality grows to levels “not seen since the early 1900s”, billionaires are more often exalted than checked. Understanding this paradox requires recognizing how deeply ingrained economic myths and power structures privilege the rich. Without changing those underlying dynamics — whether by cultural shift or institutional reform — admiration of the ultra-wealthy is likely to remain stronger than efforts to regulate them.