I didn't say that the fabulously wealthy are useless, per se, though in reality they often are. And investable capital accumulation is, obviously, a good thing. But in the spirit of what I said about economic systems having a relative rather than absolute value, determined by who prospers and who doesn't under a given plan, I wouldn't exactly hold up the fabulously wealthy as the cornerstone of the economy and the bedrock of everybody else's prosperity, as absolute unimpeachable paragons of virtue. I think the best economic system is one that optimizes prosperity--the greatest good for the greatest number--rather than a system that produces a few stellar successes but sweeps the less successful under the rug as an embarrassment. That's the "super star" mentality, obsessing over a few spectacular successes while relegating lesser mortals to obscurity.

Can we all agree that making sure everyone is allowed to reach their maximum potential is a good idea?

'Fraid not. I know that proposition makes a great sound bite, but it falls apart when you try to analyze and understand it. There's potential and then there's potential, for bad as well as good. It's fair to say that Hitler realized his maximum potential. To use a less extreme example, in economic terms if a potential robber baron achieves his potential at the expense of many other people, maybe it's not a good thing for society as a whole. Or even more mundane, if a store owner is a potential cheat and crook, is it really something to celebrate if he "achieves his potential"?