I just asked what you mean by normal business. Yet you can’t answer that. I did answer it. Youre not satisfied with my answer, but Im not the one making the argument that all billionaires attained their wealth through immoral means, which is a falsifiable, demonstrable claim that can and should be challenged. By failing to define what you find is normal and moral its clear your are afraid to be wrong in your assessments of these people. If I was afraid, I wouldnt have listed them lol. I am proposing a very simple and very direct litmus test to your claim. If all billionaires attained their wealth through immoral means, then I shouldnt be able to name a single billionaire at all for the challenge. The truth is that you are the one is afraid to take on the challenge and end up being wrong about your assessment that ALL billionaires attained their wealth immorally, and it shows. I wouldn’t call her evil but If you think T Swift has no exploitative business practices, I have a bride to sell you. Name them. This is a silly hill to die on. Unless you believe all methods of making a profit are inherently immoral/evil, it just does not logically follow that all billionaires attained their wealth immorally. Obviously, the average person does not believe all profiting to be inherently immoral/evil. My position is that its irrelevant, and a complete waste of time to focus on that because whether a billionaire attained their wealth morally or not makes no difference on the fact that having that much wealth is the problem regardless. By arguing that their means are always evil, you are implicitly making the argument that a billionaire who could attain their wealth morally is therefore ok. Its not. What we need to be talking about is how the hoarding of that much money is harmful to society, regardless of the means in which it was attained. This conversation serves only as further evidence that focusing on the means only damages our ability to concisely and effectively address the actual problem.