[Nwallins]

> it totally failed to address the question of wealth received through means other than entrepreneurship

These people receive wealth. They do not necessarily generate it. Athletes and movie stars are certainly talented, but entertainment is a place to push excess wealth and not necessarily a source of it.

> it claims that the rich got that way by doing work other people don't want to do, by which logic the average garbage man should be rich since he is doing work no one wants to do either.

No, doing disdainful work is not sufficient for being wealthy. Nor is it necessary. He is saying that it is common, though.

> Fourth, it lumps short sellers in with various other parasites trying to feast on the wealthy. But if good entrepreneurs will always (always!) grow the value of their companies, why should they fear short sellers?

Hm, I missed this part in the essay. Most businessmen recognize the value of short sellers in the marketplace, even if it makes their job harder. It's kind of like competition in that way.

[ju2tin]

>These people receive wealth. They do not necessarily generate it. Athletes and movie stars are certainly talented, but entertainment is a place to push excess wealth and not necessarily a source of it.

That is my point.

[Nwallins]

Given that the story is a defense of people who generate wealth, I am not surprised that he did not focus on people who do not generate wealth. I am not sure it is a failing, either.