Kyle Johnson
SpaceX’s IPO launched Elon Musk to trillionaire status. Criticisms are bountiful—but weak.
This June, SpaceX went public at $135 per share, making Musk the first publicly known, US-dollar-denominated trillionaire. That day, mainstream outlets estimated his net worth at approximately $1.2 trillion.
SpaceX has since traded heavily, causing Musk’s net worth to rise and fall by sums greater than the fortunes of people on Forbes’ top 10 list.
Predictably, people complained… a lot.
Musk’s net worth has dropped below $1 trillion. But there’s reason to believe that he and others will cross that threshold in the coming years. The issue merits discussion.
Citing Musk’s net worth, Bernie Sanders called to lift the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes, claiming that doing so would secure the program’s solvency for 75 years and “expand benefits by $2,400.”
Sanders didn’t show his math. We’re just supposed to take his word for it. But that’s worth very little, if anything at all.
Programs like Social Security and Medicare are underfunded by an estimated $175–200 trillion.
And as you probably remember, Sanders used to complain about “millionaires and billionaires”—until he became the former.
Sanders defended his millionaire status, reasoning, “I didn’t know that it was a crime to write a good book which turns out to be a bestseller.”
If Musk is guilty of a crime, then he should be charged. But in the absence of a conviction, Sanders must accept his own argument for Musk or confess to special pleading.
Writing for the Boston Review in 1996, Paul Krugman claimed that Social Security had a “Ponzi game aspect” due to early generations receiving more than they contributed. In 2011, he expressed regret for his choice of words. Last year on Substack, Krugman asserted that “Social Security isn’t a Ponzi scheme or a scam,” calling it a “highly successful program.”
Did Krugman rewrite history, or just the definition of a Ponzi scheme?
His definition is unclear.
During a recent interview with MS NOW, Krugman called SpaceX a Ponzi scheme, lamenting that “a lot of the chumps didn’t choose to be chumps.”
Does Krugman believe that Americans today choose to participate in Social Security?
His comment wasn’t off the cuff. On Substack, Krugman recently explained:
The immense human Ponzi scheme that is Elon Musk will eventually collapse. But traditional Ponzi schemes only exploit investors who choose to participate. This time much of the money propping up Musk’s scam will come from ordinary Americans who have in effect been forced to buy in. Approximately, 52% of mutual fund assets are now invested in index or index-based funds, and over 50% of American households are invested in mutual funds. Thanks to the collusion between Musk and Wall Street, enabled by the perception that the Trump administration has Musk’s back, many if not most of these small investors will be dragged, willy-nilly, into fueling the Musk juggernaut.
Should anyone in Trump’s America be surprised?
Apparently in Krugman’s America, index funds are mandatory or unavoidable, and Social Security is… optional? The man who can’t bring himself to understand how inflation disproportionately hurts the poor is now a justice warrior for index investors.
Krugman proudly champions fiat currency, once quipping, “fiat money, if you like, is backed by men with guns.” That is a factual statement. Ultimately, that’s how legal tender laws are enforced. And he has no objection to that.
But after index funds make special exemptions for SpaceX, Krugman suddenly has nuanced opinions about coercion.
Curious timing.
Returning to the MS NOW interview, he explained, “This is a rigged system. Sorry, but this is genuine rigging.”
Krugman has demanded countless economic interventions, insisting that the federal government and Federal Reserve pump hundreds of billions (sometimes trillions) into this program or that. As you might recall, he once advocated for the government to prepare for a fake alien invasion.
Can Americans easily opt out of fiscal and monetary policies?
No.
Is there not rigging in Krugman’s Keynesian schemes?
Of course there is.
So what gives?
For Krugman, this is a matter of privilege. By all appearances, Krugman fancies himself a superhero tasked with saving humanity itself.
Perhaps it’s time for the Caped Economist to create a fund that helps mere mortals avoid Musk’s promised downfall. Or does our “superhero” lack courage?
Responding to headlines about Musk’s trillionaire status, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez remarked:
But taxing wealth so normal people can afford to see a doctor and not go bankrupt over inhalers is radical left. OK[.]
Let’s put her moralizing aside.
Analyzing the causes of rising healthcare costs would cede too much ground.
Reductio ad absurdum: Tax all billionaires globally at 100% for the sole benefit of the US government.
Earlier this year, Forbes estimated there are 3,428 billionaires in the world with a combined fortune of $20.1 trillion. Assuming the US government could magically get 100 cents on the dollar, the confiscated wealth wouldn’t cover three years of the federal budget.
At current rates, that $20.1 trillion would be used for interest rate payments on the national debt, but not a penny toward the principal. The situation with unfunded liabilities would remain unchanged.
What would it take for AOC to acknowledge that the US government has a spending—not a funding—problem?
From the back seat of an SUV (which could very well be at taxpayer expense), Elizabeth Warren chimed in with one of the more irritating critiques.
How does she explain Musk’s trillionaire status?
The tax code.
I want to be clear: This is not just some fluke, it is a feature of a rigged economy. Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill cut healthcare for millions of Americans to give guys like Elon bigger tax breaks.
Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
Wealth creation is difficult. But Warren treats it like a triviality or foregone outcome; Musk only achieved trillionaire status because the government failed to confiscate more from him.
Totally illogical.
If wealth creation is so easy, then Warren should choose to fund her fantasies with profits from a business rather than wealth confiscation and redistribution.
Poverty is the default condition of man and was common throughout history. Using voluntary transactions to distance mankind from squalor should be celebrated, not vilified. Someone should inform Warren that the desire and ability to confiscate wealth generates none.
Many of Musk’s critics accuse him of “wage theft.” This is the Marxist idea that employers have stolen the difference between the value of goods and services generated by an employee and his paycheck.
Musk’s critics note that he does not personally apply a wrench to making cars or rockets. They totally dismiss his intellectual contributions that make these enterprises possible. And they ignore the nature of voluntary agreements: do this in exchange for being paid that. If I agree to spend my time wielding a wrench, I prefer to have the money over the time I exchanged for it.
Worse, the argument is selectively applied.
Did Sanders personally chop down the trees used for his books? Did he personally operate the printing presses? Did he design and build the microphones and speakers used at his events?
Of course not.
Sanders and his publisher contracted for various goods and services. Sanders turned his books and speeches into millions. Other than scale, how is this meaningfully different from Musk and his companies?
He never explains.
Beyond his contractual obligations, did Sanders share any additional part of his fortune with the lumberjacks, printers, and engineers who facilitated his book sales and speech tours?
If not, he’s clearly a hypocrite.
And what about governments? Why is not taxation a much clearer form of wage theft?
Presumably, Musk’s critics would argue that taxpayers receive goods and services in exchange for tax payments. Can Musk not argue the same? And his customers don’t go to jail if they refuse to “voluntarily” make contributions every year…
A significant portion of Musk’s critics are self-proclaimed socialists and communists. In various ways, both advocate for employee ownership of private enterprises in modern economies.
It’s been reported that SpaceX’s IPO generated 4,400 millionaires; 400 centimillionaires; and nine billionaires. Among them are cafeteria workers and welders who accepted its stock as part of their compensation packages.
Are they also now evil capitalists? Are they also inappropriately wealthy?
Other than themselves, how many simple workers have been turned into millionaires by Warren, Sanders, Krugman, et al.?
Has anyone helped create more millionaires and billionaires than Musk?
Musk’s critics task him with solving immense problems such as world hunger.
In 2021, CNN ran the following headline: “2% of Elon Musk’s wealth could help solve world hunger, says director of UN food scarcity organization.”
The article quotes Director of the United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP) David Beasley demanding that billionaires “step up now, on a one-time basis … . $6 billion to help 42 million people that are literally going to die if we don’t reach them. It’s not complicated.”
The WFP clarified that $6 billion would not solve world hunger, but would “prevent geopolitical instability, mass migration and save 42 million people on the brink of starvation.”
That year, the WFP collected a then-record $9.6 billion in funding.
It collected an additional $14.1 billion in 2022.
And another $8.3 billion in 2023. That year, the official X account for Chief of the WFP (@WFPChief) posted, “At this very moment there are 345 million people one step away from starvation.”
That’s almost 10x more hungry people despite taking in billions more than demanded from Musk.
The WFP collected another $9.8 billion in 2024 and $6.5 billion in 2025. Today, its website claims that 363 million people face “acute hunger” (which the WFP has defined as “not knowing when, or if, they will eat again” and also “an extreme lack of food/other basic needs, with starvation, death, destitution, and extremely critical acute malnutrition levels evident”).
Does any of this get through to Musk’s critics?
Why should they still be allowed to claim that Musk could solve important problems with a tiny fraction of his wealth when the tens of billions of dollars thrown at these problems have made no dent?
By all appearances, every idea from Musk’s critics about improving society begins with “the government should.”
Do they believe the US government has not yet had enough time and money to address the issues?
The federal government declared war on poverty in 1964. On its 50-year anniversary, the Heritage Foundation published a report analyzing the results—$22 trillion spent and a poverty rate that has bounced between 12 and 14% for decades. Presumably, trillions more have been spent since 2014.
And not a peep about this from Musk’s critics. With moral certitude, they promise utopia if only they could tax and spend Musk’s wealth.
Have they no idea of federal outlays?
Musk made his first fortune in 1995 with the sale of his software company Zip2. Since then, net federal outlays, adjusted for inflation, total approximately $151.1 trillion.
Is it unreasonable to ask Musk’s critics why their pet problems still exist after all the flood of money spent on them?
Why should anyone believe that confiscating Musk’s fortune is the critical last step that will finally solve these problems?
Musk’s critics show little restraint in their demands of him, but seemingly demand nothing from government bureaucrats, elected officials, and their fellow voters.
Since 2003, the federal government has made an estimated $2.7 trillion of “improper payments”—roughly double Musk’s net worth. In 2019, the Pentagon reportedly made $35 trillion worth of “accounting adjustments” to balance its books. It has failed eight consecutive audits.
Musk’s entire fortune could disappear into that financial black hole without helping the needy at all.
Why should taxes be increased—on anyone, not just Musk—before waste, fraud, and abuse are eliminated?
The recent tsunami of criticism comes as no surprise; “trillionaire” has cache.
Well, kind of… nobody cares about the trillionaires of Zimbabwe.
To be clear, I’m not saying the US is experiencing hyperinflation. But I’ve yet to see a single Musk critic raise concerns about fiat currency debasement, Federal Reserve economic distortions, ballooning money supply, soaring debt, massive deficit spending, and the like.
If they thought about them, Musk’s critics might find these issues relevant to him becoming a trillionaire…
And if so, who is to blame? Who pulls the levers? How did they gain power?
In attempts to prove they aren’t Musk-haters, some of his critics note that they are customers of X, Tesla, and Starlink.
How do they fail to draw any connection between their choices as consumers and Musk’s wealth?
His fortune results from millions of others making the same decisions as their own.
It’s rather absurd to voluntarily give a man money and then complain he has too much of it.
One of the more plausible complaints against Musk is that a significant portion of his wealth comes from government contracts.
It is true that Musk and his companies have lucrative government contracts. I have no problem with heavily scrutinizing every single aspect of Musk’s contracts—including promises made, goods delivered, services rendered, prices agreed on, etc.
If there’s impropriety, then Musk should face consequences. The same goes for his tax filings.
But if everything is aboveboard, then Musk’s critics are attempting to renegotiate contracts ex post facto.
Unimpressive.
Musk is not the source of government contract problems.
In 2021, Biden signed a bill designating $7.5 billion to build 500,000 EV charging stations nationwide. By 2024, seven had been built. By mid 2025, the Government Accountability Office estimated that under 400 had been completed—which means that each station cost more than $18,000,000.
Tesla debuted its first charging station in September 2012. By the end of 2025, it had built roughly 3,000 charging stations containing over 30,000 individual connectors in the US. Today, Tesla operates over 8,000 stations with more than 80,0000 connectors worldwide. Yes, Tesla was granted $31 million from the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program. That funding was temporarily suspended by Trump last year.
But do his critics give Musk any credit for this?
They demand immediate government action, assuring everyone that results are practically guaranteed. But after government funding is secured, Musk’s critics excuse slow (sometimes no) progress and pitiful results. Is there no limit to the leniency they afford the government?
There’s no denying that Musk has benefited from the federal government subsidizing electric vehicle purchases. Generally speaking, I’m not a fan of government meddling in the economy. But Musk capitalized on subsidies that were available to others, so it's not reasonable to criticize him alone on this front.
Should Musk have manufactured vehicles with internal combustion engines?
Don’t voters bear any responsibility for helping create various subsidy schemes?
Musk’s critics do not explain. Their complaints about subsidies stem from incomplete analysis.
Musk’s critics should find a way to bottle and sell their confidence. As I’ve previously explained:
… capital allocation is a skill. Entrepreneurship and capital markets largely determine how resources are allocated. Every day, participants battle to stay alive. Wise decisions are rewarded. Sustained losses eventually prove fatal. Fear of failure ensures that resources are allocated with great caution and care.
But everything changes when government allocates capital.
Most voters have no skill or experience in capital allocation. They elect politicians who are equally unqualified. And with rare exception, their economic advisors have only read about capital allocation in books—they have no meaningful real-world experience.
Careless—or kleptocratic—politicians and bureaucrats have already proven my point.
In 2021, Biden signed a bill allocating $42.5 billion to assist underserved and rural areas with internet access. As of November 2025, the government had not gotten a single person online.
I don’t even need to ask Musk’s critics if they believe he would have done worse. As government officials failed to orchestrate the laying of fiber optic cables, Musk launched satellites into space to blanket the globe with internet access. Starlink began service in 2020 and had over nine million customers by the end of 2025—many of them in the most remote areas on Earth.
So where’s the outrage over the $42.5 billion?
Was it spent in good faith?
Was it laundered?
These questions aren’t rhetorical. There are real-world consequences to wealth confiscation which extend beyond internet access.
Seemingly all of Musk’s critics insist that the government be given greater budgets for health care. Do they imagine that the same elected officials who couldn’t expand internet access with existing technology (despite an exorbitant budget) are going to successfully identify and invest in better medical technologies?
Again, not waiting for the government to get its act together, Musk’s Neuralink has definitively improved the lives of people with the most debilitating injuries and diseases.
Every dollar taxed from Musk and his companies cannot also be spent on such innovation. So what technologies and innovations are Musk’s critics willing to deprive of capital?
Musk’s critics insist that taxing him is necessary for the “greater good.” Would they be so kind as to show their calculations?
During a 2008 presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the moderator noted that tax revenue increased after George Bush Sr. lowered the capital gains tax rate, and that tax revenues fell after Bill Clinton increased the capital gains tax rate. So why raise the tax rate at all?
Obama explained, “for purposes of fairness.” Naturally, Obama appointed himself as the arbiter of fairness.
Musk’s critics wrap their calls for taxation with claims of revenue. But how many simply desire to use taxation as a form of punishment?
Like Obama, Musk’s critics imagine themselves best suited to determine matters of fairness. Curiously, they never feel compelled to explain why it’s fair for them to hold such powerful positions.
They offer no “theory of fairness” and never discuss property rights.
Millions of people voluntarily gave Musk money. Elected officials gave him yet more. At what point did things become unfair?
Love or hate him, one thing seems undeniable: Musk has an extraordinary appetite for risk.
Musk took his profits from the sale of Zip2 and co-founded X.com, an online bank at the time. After a merger, the company was acquired by PayPal. Famously, Musk claimed:
My proceeds from the PayPal acquisition were $180 million. I put $100 million in SpaceX, $70 million in Tesla, and $10 million in Solar City. I had to borrow money for rent.
Perhaps he embellished a tad. But people treat Musk as though his current position were somehow stolen or easily achieved.
History is littered with people who blew their fortunes trying to parlay one big win into the next.
At any point during the last three decades, Musk could’ve disappeared to a private island and sipped mai tais for the rest of his life. But he clearly favors risk over comfort.
The world would be better off if more followed his lead.
But a Musk-like appetite for risk doesn’t require entrepreneurship.
Nor does it require playing the lottery, crypto, or sports gambling.
This is admittedly self-serving, but resource speculating is less risky than many investors believe—especially when betting on the Pre-Production Sweet Spot (the crowning achievement of Lobo’s career) and implementing Upside Maximizers.
Money is typically the fastest and most reliable way to solve problems for yourself, your loved ones, and your community.
Having money means having power to do things, which is infinitely better than needing to ask for help… especially from the government (of all institutions).
I suspect that many of Musk’s critics feel powerless. Perhaps they just need to give themselves permission to get rich. So too might many of his fans and those who are largely indifferent.
We’re not shy about making money here at the Independent Speculator. Lobo’s written about his desire to help make millionaires, which he acknowledges is in pursuit of his own wealth.
Listen to Lobo’s interviews and you’ll hear him say, “Sorry, I don’t give away stock picks for free… those are only for paying customers.”
The comment section on his YouTube videos are often filled with complaints about Lobo’s “vagueness,” “evasiveness,” and his recent move to cash.
But subscribers receive our most detailed analysis of over 1,000 mining stocks. And Lobo’s move to cash increased his average gain to 87.31%, based on investments on which he gave clients first dibs. Unsurprisingly, their feedback has been very positive.
My point is that those who want to do well for themselves and the world would achieve better results by accumulating wealth through voluntary exchanges than by criticizing Musk for having done so.
We can help with that.
KJ
P.S. Musk’s businesses are resource intensive. Long term, Lobo loves copper. Uranium is attractive right now. See how Lobo is playing the markets by subscribing to our free, no-hype, no-spam newsletter:The Digest.
