They love painting owners as entrepreneurs, but never bother defending the owner who’s not the founder. Their entire justification collapses when the owner is not the founder, but just a rich leech who bought out the company. A lot of entrepreneurs basically have to go beg these leeches for more capital when they run out and trade huge stakes of their company’s ownership just to keep going. Or they get established and just sell it to the rich for a payout.
Yeah, I notice these sorts love to bring up Henry Ford as an example to try to defend billionaires and CEOs, which, even if we ignore the fact that he was a turd to the laborers he relied upon for his fortune, isn’t an accurate comparison the vast majority of the time, because most of these modern business giants are just some chode that walks in to an already extant company and manages to simply avoid crashing the gravy train.
