Playing devils advocate here:

Maybe the politicians position is that the whole system is based on cheating and everyone who partakes is acting immorally?

Is it fair that the founder got education and some money to start his company while other people are living on the street or have to care for relatives? If they come from a relatively privileged position and manage to build a company that ends up being successful, did they earn that money?

I don’t think the cheating people criticize is necessarily criminal fraud.

Edit: and the second thing people seem to criticize is that just keeping your company growing often seems to involve some unethical things. Basically every company that’s manufacturing hardware is doing that in Asia under inhumane conditions, so they probably can’t really claim they earned their money and it’s just maths.

▲

zozbot234 9 hours ago | parent [-]

If the only viable alternative is that nobody gets to start their business rather than some idealized best case of everyone getting a chance of it, then yes, it's probably fair.

▲

echoangle 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don’t think the only options are the current way or that nobody is allowed to start companies.

Im not from the US so I’m probably not doing a good job at the devils advocate thing but I could imagine that you just tax the people that start the business so they still get some healthy personal wealth by redistributing the truly extreme wealth back to the workers/society.

There’s probably some motivation problem to grow the company further at some point but maybe you could limit the percentage any individual can earn by holding the company or something like that?

	▲	TheOtherHobbes 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There are models of business which don't assume a handful of people - some of whom don't even do the work - get to keep the profits, and the rest are disposable.

▲

layer8 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Businesses are started without VC capital all the time, especially outside of the US and SV circles.