[mcantelon]

>Why I love hearing a billionaire say, "I'm a self made man". Oh really? So all the people who worked for you, cooked for you, kept your schedule, managed your companies, investments and life didn't do a damn thing? Really?

The individualist "self made man" notion seems a conceit designed to introduce the concept of aristocracy, which humans seem drawn to, to modern capitalism.

[smsm42]

The idea of "self made man" is directly opposed to the concept of aristocracy - which derives its uniqueness and elevation from belonging to a long row of elevated ancestors and to a long-living tradition. No aristocrate would ever call oneself "self-made" - that's the same as calling oneself an impostor or a fraud. One can be made an aristocrat - e.g. by a royalty - and fresh-minted aristocrats always were considered the lowest form of aristocracy by the "old" and "true" ones, the length of the family tree always was the main source of aristocratic pride. But one can never be a "self-made" aristocrat, it's a direct contradiction in terms and concepts. I'm sorry, but your theory makes no sense at all.

[pyre]

aristocracy? The aristocracy were hardly 'self-made.' It was inherited. While a 'self-made' billionaire can't claim to have no employees, he probably did work for his money.