"Rich" isn't the first thing that comes to most people's minds when they hear about Steve Jobs, any more than "powerful" comes to their minds when they hear abo

"Rich" isn't the first thing that comes to most people's minds when they hear about Steve Jobs, any more than "powerful" comes to their minds when they hear about Barack Obama. People think of them as "successful", because they like those who have vision and succeed at implementing it, but "the rich" and "the powerful" have negative connotations. There's a one-step mental transition in realizing that, in fact, Steve Jobs is rich (but that's okay) because he is successful, and likewise for Obama. Silicon Valley is ostensibly positive-sum. Some of what occurs on Wall Street is also positive-sum: for example, arbitrage and market-making provide liquidity to markets. Some financial activity, however, is not. Unfortunately for Wall Street's reputation, people tend to focus on the activities that are excessive and destructive, such as the subprime mortgage fiasco. In general, people tend to resent most those who make money in manners that are zero-sum (or negative-sum). Examples of this would be NYC landlords, who are becoming inordinately rich based entirely on others' pain and misfortune, and health insurance executives, who enrich themselves by charging ridiculous premiums and then denying care to sick people. Most people, when they think of Wall Street, think of traders; few would draw the distinction between, say, corporate finance and what traders do. Trading isn't actually zero-sum, given that it provides liquidity, but it seems to most people like a zero-sum game, and so it's not well respected.