Zohran Mamdani, the person who defeated Cuomo in the primaries and is now seen as a mayoral contender for New York – the beating heart of capitalism – recently declared in an interview: ‘I don’t think we should have billionaires.’
Mamdani is not alone in this view. The visible edge of economic populism – the slogans, the soundbites – often conceals an intellectual iceberg beneath: ideas inherited from defunct economists, or sometimes living ones. One such idea with deep roots is limitarianism: the belief that there should be a cap on personal wealth.
Thomas Piketty defines it as ‘the idea that we should set a maximum on how much resources one individual can appropriate’. Its most articulate modern advocate is Ingrid Robeyns, whose recent book, ‘Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth’, calls for a global wealth cap, which she suggests could be set around $10 million per person.
But limitarianism rests on an old intellectual error. An error common not only on the Left but even among some classical liberals too: the mistaken division between ‘production’ and ‘distribution’. The assumption is that production happens through economic forces and that distribution is purely political, so policymakers can reshape who gets what without damaging how much is created.
This assumption leads to the view of the economy as a fixed pie. If one person has a large slice, others must go hungry. As Percy Shelley put it in ‘Queen Mab’ (1813), ‘The rich have become rich by the toil of the poor… they increase in wealth by the misery of the workers.’ While that may describe life under socialism, it misunderstands how wealth is generated in a capitalist system.
In capitalism, you can grow rich by making the pie bigger: creating products, companies, jobs and innovations that benefit not only yourself, but millions of others. This insight was first observed by French sociologist Gabriel Tarde, and later expanded by economists like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Tarde noted how luxuries eventually become necessities. His example was forks and spoons, once the preserve of the wealthy, now found in every home.
For our generation, consider childbirth. Queen Anne had 17 pregnancies, yet none of her children survived to adulthood. Today, even the poorest families in developed countries can expect their children to live. This transformation wasn’t delivered by committees or redistribution. It was driven by the freedom of innovators to experiment, often starting with products only the wealthy could afford.
As Hayek wrote in ‘The Constitution of Liberty’:
What today may seem extravagance or even waste, because it is enjoyed by the few and undreamed of by the masses, is payment for the experimentation with a style of living that will eventually be available to many.
Are we being held hostage by billionaires?
In a heated LBC interview on June 2, Labour politician Ali Milani responded to Reform MP Sarah Pochin’s concerns about wealthy individuals leaving the UK with the words: ‘I’m so sick and tired of hearing the rich are leaving this country if we make them pay a little bit more tax.’ He continued, ‘you and others may well stand up in the House of Commons’ and tell the British people that ‘I’m being held hostage by the super-rich in this country.’
For many on the Left, wealthy individuals exiting the country is viewed as a matter of patriotism. If they leave, it’s because they don’t love Britain. But it’s not about loyalty, it’s about incentives.
Being concerned about capital flight isn’t about defending the lifestyles of billionaires. It’s about worrying that their departure will mean fewer jobs, less investment and less innovation. It’s not about being held hostage by the wealthy, it’s about the everyday people whose lives would be better if the billionaire stayed, invested or launched their next venture in the UK.
But instead of focusing on growth, the Left seems increasingly committed to the idea that we can tax our way to prosperity. This week’s New Statesman cover says it plainly: ‘Just Raise Tax!’ That slogan may feel satisfying, but it won’t lead to better life for working people.
A world without billionaires?
A world without billionaires is not a world without poverty, it’s a world without Google, Microsoft, the iPhone, and many of the conveniences that define modern life. The experiments billionaires fund – their risky bets on new technologies – pave the way for millions to enjoy what were once luxuries.
I would agree with Mamdani’s argument that billionaires shouldn’t exist, if he added ‘In socialist countries’. In Fidel Castro’s Cuba, people were starving while the leader wore two Rolexes on his wrist on a yacht. Those are the billionaires we shouldn’t tolerate: not entrepreneurs, but what Edmund Burke called ‘gamblers with public money’.
Let’s be clear: the real enemy isn’t extreme wealth, it’s persistent poverty. And you don’t fight poverty by punishing wealth, but by creating more of it.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
