Most billionaires realized that they do not need to be in the news or do any work, they can let the CEOs of this world take a small part of the profits and all the blame for what companies do. That is why we know nothing about the super-rich but many CEOs are always on TV. Smaller shareholders do not have power to change things.
In some sense I respect him for at least being transparent. Most other billionaires are only visible through heavily refracted PR lenses.
This is in contrast to Musk, who is hated for being a POS person, despite running companies that are somewhat respected.
Gates had a pretty good one somewhere, as he quietly slipped into the night. Bezos, Zuckerberg? They're too involved and don't seem to deeply care (though I suspect Zuckerberg's is doing better, what with that race they had him run).
There are a lot of irrational people on the Internet very quick to lump anything into an incoherent conspiracy and start flooding you with hate; for example, nearly every song on Youtube has a comment saying the song has Satanic or Illuminati references, or whatever flavor of conspiracy you like.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Billionaires_Index
Edit: Hi folks. Please remember I’m responding to a comment about public perception, not some ground truth idea of absolute wealth. These lists reflect what regular people are being told, and are probably a good indicator of public perception.
What is real disposable wealth?
This is true, but there will also be a set of just regular normal people who see what these powerful people are saying and doing and hate on them because what they are saying and doing is bad and hateful.
I suppose he gets all the credit for being authentic due to his telling the public not to buy TLSA shares, and the way he tries to work the number 420 into share purchase prices? Its all just theatrics, just as how he (and was photographed as he) carried a sink into the lobby of Twitter last year on the day he bought it. You'd think a heavily-burdened business leader would have things of greater import on his mind than cheap imagery.
Naturally, some of it could have been organic. I sure remember having a more positive opinion on Musk based on what he was able to accomplish with Tesla and SpaceX. It is only later as he was gaining more spotlight that the eventual reports of his work practices became more commonly known. OTOH, Gates remain that old guy that talks about sustainability, saving the world and stuff.
Come to think of it. Maybe you are right. Musk does not have PR team.
Sadly we cannot trust all billionaires to be 'enlightened despots', but at least in this case I say we lucked out - there's plenty stupid or harmful things he could've done
Like, for example, purchase Twitter and grind it into garbage. I'm joking, of course, but goes to show why Musk is considered an imbecile _despite_ having money and Gates is considered intelligent because he made money (and spends it well).
I'd point you to the relative popularity of the Media that is down on Musk and instructs others to be so.
We (in the US) should all worry as they move to private islands/beaches/New Zealand.