It was only a matter of time: Elon Musk has become the world’s first trillionaire. Until recently, when economists talked about “trillions,” they were referring to the GDP of the biggest economies or the total value of inheritances waiting for the heirs of today’s billionaires. The word isn’t used much in everyday conversation, let alone to describe one person’s wealth.
But now we’ve entered a new phase of the oligarchic era. Before, when we talked about the wealth of the world’s richest billionaires, we meant a few hundred billion dollars. Three years ago, Musk’s total assets were estimated at around $250 billion. The speed at which this has grown is astonishing—and so is what it really means.
We need to understand two things about trillionaires: what a trillion dollars actually is, and why this level of wealth concentration is dangerous.
A trillion is $1,000,000,000,000—or “12 zeros.” Macroeconomists might grasp the scale of this number, but most of us don’t. That’s why, when I wrote a book about the need for a cap on personal wealth, or “limitarianism,” I came up with the idea of an “equivalent hourly wage.” This is the wage someone would need to earn to build up a fortune like that. In Musk’s case, what hourly wage would he need to amass a trillion dollars? The answer is that, even if he worked 70 hours a week from age 20 to 75 with no holidays, his pay would have to be about $5 million an hour. For comparison, the median hourly wage in the US is just under $25.
So why is such extreme wealth a problem? One reason is fairness in taxes. Economist Gabriel Zucman has shown that billionaires pay much lower effective tax rates than everyone else. That’s because our legal systems offer so many ways to avoid taxes—for example, by moving money between different countries where their companies operate, using legal loopholes, or stashing wealth in tax havens.
For decades, neoliberal economic thinking has told us to accept tax cuts for the richest, arguing that their wealth will eventually “trickle down.” The claim is that everyone benefits when the rich become billionaires—and now trillionaires. But even the IMF has admitted this isn’t true. It’s an optimistic ideological myth meant to stop us worrying about growing inequality.
A second argument against billionaires and trillionaires is wastefulness. There’s no point in one person having so much money, and it’s scandalous when many people die young or live limited lives with few opportunities, simply because the richest take the biggest share of the wealth we all create together. A fairer distribution of wealth around the world would let humanity tackle major global challenges like climate change, while 99% of people would live better lives (and maybe the 1% too, given the mental health problems and social isolation that often come with extreme wealth). And the richest would still enjoy very comfortable lives.
But perhaps we should focus most on the third reason against billionaire and trillionaire wealth: the harm it causes. Extreme wealth concentration weakens democracies. It leads to massive greenhouse gas emissions and environmental damage that aren’t needed for a dignified life. These harms create social problems and even economic damage, because too much corporate power can make the economy less fair and less competitive.
Focusing on harm goes against the usual way of thinking about money, which assumes there’s no limit to how much wealth one person can accumulate. But we need a major shift in how we think about the negative effects of extreme wealth concentration.Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, is a clear example of these dangers. He made the largest donation in history to a presidential campaign, spending around $290 million to support Donald Trump’s 2024 run. Then he used that power and influence to create the “Department of Government Efficiency” (Doge), causing chaos in the US civil service. Musk dismantled USAID, the agency that funded and ran many humanitarian and development programs, including quick actions to prevent famines. Scientists estimate that because USAID was shut down, more than 14 million lives will be lost by the end of 2030, including 4.5 million children under five.
Extreme concentration of wealth means extreme power. And Musk is using that power—including through his social media platform X—to spread racist and xenophobic ideas. He helps fuel fear and violent language, which feeds irrational anxieties that push voters toward the radical right. He has interfered in Europe’s internal politics, for example by boosting the far-right AfD in Germany and calling the UK prime minister a criminal.
Elon Musk’s unprecedented accumulation of wealth
Read more
The ultimate danger is what’s called the oligarchic endgame theory, where power is concentrated among the super-rich. Governments, controlled by the wealthiest, then do everything to protect the privileges of this group and its supporters. Democracy itself is at risk if the rigid social hierarchy that comes with this concentration of power among the richest becomes a reality.
If we want to stop this from happening, we need to find ways to reduce current levels of wealth concentration. And that’s not just about Musk’s trillion dollars. We need initiatives like the extreme wealth line project, which aims to use scientific evidence to figure out the point at which wealth starts to cause harm, and where to set a “wealth line”—just as we use a “poverty line” to determine what income people need to live on.
But it starts with understanding that billionaires and trillionaires are not a sign of success. They’re a sign of a broken system that harms all of our lives.
Ingrid Robeyns is a Belgian-Dutch economist and philosopher, and the author of Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth.
Frequently Asked Questions
Here is a list of FAQs based on the premise that Elon Musk having a trillion dollars is a problem
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 Why would it be a problem if one person has a trillion dollars
Its a problem because that much money represents extreme inequality A trillion dollars could fund entire governments healthcare systems or climate initiatives When one person holds that much wealth it means millions of others have far less and it gives that individual immense unchecked power over politics media and the economy
2 Didnt Elon Musk earn that money by making great products
He earned it by building valuable companies like Tesla and SpaceX But the issue isnt that hes talentedits that the system allows wealth to concentrate so extremely Much of his wealth comes from stock value not a salary and its protected by tax loopholes A single person shouldnt have the financial power equivalent to the GDP of a small country
3 Couldnt he use that money to solve world problems
In theory yes But thats the problem we rely on one persons choice to solve global issues A trillion dollars could end world hunger multiple times over yet it isnt being used that way It highlights a broken system where charity is voluntary and basic needs depend on the whim of a billionaire
4 Is it illegal to have a trillion dollars
No its not illegal But legality doesnt mean its ethical or good for society Many economists argue that extreme wealth concentration is a sign of market failure not success Laws could be changed to prevent it but currently its perfectly legal
IntermediateLevel Questions
5 How does one person having a trillion dollars affect the economy
It distorts markets That much money can buy up competitors influence stock prices and create monopolies It also means less money circulates among regular people which slows economic growth When wealth sits in assets instead of being spent it doesnt create jobs or demand
6 Doesnt his wealth create jobs and innovation
His companies do create jobs but thats not the same as his personal wealth The money sitting in his bank account or stock portfolio doesnt directly employ anyone In fact studies show
