Many people find corporations more democratic than an aristocracy. I’d rather have AMZN on NASDAQ than have Lord Bezos become a trillionaire.
Isn't he likely going to be the next trillionaire anyway, with or without the title of Lord?
Having an aristocratic title that passes down is much worse than some rich dude leaving money because that lasts hundreds of years. And gets taxed.
But in a practical sense, I also don't think the next generation of Bezo's are going to be anything but obscenely wealthy. And the generation after that. And after that.
While the hereditary title was a bad idea, they also had turnover too.
So I think it is much of a muchness.
So not saying trillionaires are perfect, just that they have fewer flaws than aristocracy.
* Lower-class ultrawealthy have billions on paper, but no liquidity. Think of a founder sitting on a pre-IPO unicorn.
* Jeff Bezos is lower-middle-class ultrawealthy. He has wealth, but he can't use it, since it's locked up in Amazon. If he sold it all, Amazon stock would collapse.
* Bill Gates is middle-class rich. He has "free" wealth which he can do with as he pleases.
* Upper-class wealthy have wealth in political structures (think Saudi princes for a visible example, or low-key formerly noble European families who hold massive amounts of land). Their wealth is now structured so it can survive economic collapses, wars, and so on, and they can command real power through global political influence.
It's really about how much you can use your wealth for power and influence.