I feel like the conflict in the spirit of the article is to create billionaires, not just have billionaires. 'Create' is not a great word, but 'create an enviro

I feel like the conflict in the spirit of the article is to create billionaires, not just have billionaires. 'Create' is not a great word, but 'create an environment that allows for creation of new wealth' is a bit verbose. Granted, I'm sure in the US, very few of the billionaires grew up in meager means, but quite a lot became billionaires under their own endeavors. Admittedly, it is largely secular (i.e. technology), but I think that dovetails. But out of the top 10 richest in the US, only the Waltons are heirs. I would say it's a bit of a distortion, since the all of them combined I think is still larger than any other US individual. Looking at Sweden, it looks like a lot of it is inherited, certainly most of the top 10. And like 1/4 are H&M, Tetra Pak, and Ikea alone. The new 'household names' are spotify and minecraft. Norway is obviously smaller, but surprisingly, quite a lot of them got the three commas from their own businesses. The last-ditch cop out there is the typical Norway is in general an outlier due to being a highly developed nation with oil money. However, most of the billionaires are not there due to energy.