of course, and people should be able the reap the rewards for their work and foresight. but the question of to what extent those outliers should exist is a legitimate one. ie an outlier where somebody has a net worth of 150 million vs 150 billion is a huge difference.
sure... but a society where everybody is an owner or solo prac ioner isn't plausible. the system effectively mandates that there will be relatively few owners and a vast majority of workers. im not saying that's inherently bad, but "you should be one of the very few" is fortune cookie advice imo. "be one of the rich ones" doesnt solve a broader societal issue of an outlandish wealth gap.
individual advice works fine at the individual level, but you quite frankly need policy to impact the broader public issue. ie to solve the obesity problem, with an individual you can help them plan a better diet, motivate them to exercise more, etc. but you're not going to tackle america's obesity problem with pep talks on TV. you likely would need some policy in place, either regulating ingredients in fast food, setting tax on sugar, etc etc (the specific solution is not the takeaway here)
mostly agree with this when it comes to personal standard of living, but when it comes to buying influence, being somebody who can fork over tens of millions to PACs or candidates buys something too.
but either way, if this premise is taken as true, if anything it acts as an argument to set some artificial high end limit to the wealth gap.