Providing up-front funding for crazy ideas like electric cars and reusable rockets when everyone else is too stupid and shortsighted to is itself productive activity. In fact it is the most important productive activity: figuring out what to do, what is a good idea, and being willing to bet the returns of your previous labour on it and wait.

The return on investment is the payment it is in our self-interest to give for this activity, because we want and need such work to be done (so that we can make use of the fruits of such ventures, instead of getting nothing at all when wealth is squandered on bad ideas or just plain old consumption).

But how do we know who will come up with good ideas about what to do? Why Musk? Because he managed to earn a lot through PayPal? Does that business skill (and luck) carry over to decisions about rockets and populating Mars and developing AI?

Why not give a billion to a random business owner to come up with what to do?

Why Musk what? The point is that it's not about Musk. We're talking about whether Musk "deserves" his billions in profit and the answer is it's not about Musk, and it's not about "deserve". It's about all the people who benefit because of the existence of spacex/tesla/etc, who wouldn't benefit if we refuse to pay for the work of intelligent investment (by, say, seizing profits), because that would prevent their existence in the first place.

Certainly, if you think you can identify people who are particularly qualified to pick good ideas and make investments in them, it's not a bad idea to give them some money (but where do you get that money? hopefully not somewhere with negative externalities such as stealing it from different random business owners). Although structurally it's better if the billion itself is given as an investment instead of a gift, because then the person giving the billion has "skin in the game" themselves. Which is basically what I think VCs do, although I don't know how effective they usually are.

(Yes, this whole thing assumes a regulatory framework where businesses that have negative externalities or are otherwise bad for the world do not make profit. Indeed, companies that use dark patterns or rent seeking tactics to make profit should be legally punished, and if such punishments make them bad investments it's a good thing, because it means they were on net bad for the world.)

> It's about all the people who benefit because of the existence of spacex/tesla/etc

No one benefits by the mere "existence" of SpaceX/Tesla. People benefit only from what those companies produce, and the things those companies produce only come into this world by way of people selling their labor to design, engineer, and manufacture the rockets/cars. We can go all the way down the supply chain and say that people only benefit from Tesla due to the people mining lithium in other countries. And yet the CEO of Tesla believes that the people mining his lithium deserve to have their government replaced by a US-backed coup to be more friendly to his corporation.

The point isn't that we should "seize profits". The point is that the guy at the top isn't producing as much value as he thinks he is compared to everyone below him. They are producing the real value, they should be getting the wealth. Maybe Musk still comes out of the equation the richest one of them all. Fine. But he doesn't have to come out a demi-god with more money than he could spend in 100 lifetimes. There's no reason that needs to happen.

I think inheritance and unchecked wealth accumulation work against meritocracy actually.

There are things that make people more efficient as a homo sapiens and we want them to enjoy those things and not to worry and stress various annoyances so they can concentrate on what they are best at.

But as you say it's obviously not like that for CEOs of big companies. Just because Bill Gates was good at selling software doesn't mean he should hold this immense power in the world and decide how to allocate resources between vaccines and cancer research etc. It has nothing to do with his meritocratic expertise (of course he pays his own experts, but he does maintain the high level control). Some would argue that this value was all created as additional value by him via the efficiencies enabled by the software and that it wasn't merely captured out of existing value. It's obviously a combination, but based on ideology people estimate it differently. We know that rent seeking and dark pattern business practices exist, as do lobbying and other forms of corruption.

The billionaire examples aren't examples of meritocracy but of rewarding luck. Nobody would say that as a human Elon Musk is literally that much more competent than, say, the best senior engineer at Tesla.

But also, beyond a certain point rich people aren't people any more, more like institutions. They just channel that wealth in different directions, they cannot "enjoy" a significant potion of it as a human being. All that money gets rotated back into salaries of others, else it would remain just numbers in databases. It cannot meaningfully accumulate. Just like if you burn a bag of cash, you induce minuscule inflation effects and everybody else's money increases in value a little bit. If a billionaire sits on his cash, it's as if he didn't have it. But when he uses it, he pays salaries and makes people do stuff. The problem is when this stuff is "the wrong thing".

I think the main argument against billionaire power is that the distributed wisdom of crowds and markets are better at allocation and deciding what's worth doing than centralizing it without limit. It's good to centralize it as long as it's about merit and related to expertise or capacity, but not beyond that. Billionaires are way beyond human scale regarding that.