Here's another thing I can't stand hearing about when anyone defends the wealthy:
The idea that society benefits when investors compete successfully is pretty widely accepted. Dean Baker, a prominent progressive economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says that most economists believe society often benefits from investments by the wealthy. Baker estimates the ratio is 5 to 1, meaning that for every dollar an investor earns, the public receives the equivalent of $5 of value. The Google founder Sergey Brin might be very rich, but the world is far richer than he is because of Google.
The whole "Where would you and the rest of the world BE if it weren't for people such as Steven Jobs, Bill Gates or Sergey Brin?" argument.
Here's the fallacy with that: For every Steven Jobs who DID innovate a product, employed others and theoretically deserved his wealth, there are a hundred to two hundred more super-wealthy people that DIDN'T invent anything, WEREN'T responsible for their company's success, GOT lazier as they made more money, EMPLOYED parasite business tactics such as leveraged buyouts, corporate raiding, one-sided mergers and job offshoring while voting themselves lottery bonuses and salaries no matter how good a job they did. Oh, and they fired workers because profits just weren't high enough last quarter. These parasites are on the boards of corporations across the country and in our governmental offices. Some of them come FROM the government and go back TO it, like a rotating door of vampire fascists.
"Productivity", "can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong", "austerity for thee not for me", and all that.
A Steven Jobs doesn't excuse a Mitt Romney or a Lee Raymond or a Jack Welch or an Al Dunlap. It also doesn't define the "law unto themselves" business practices they frequently are allowed to get away with.