A trillion dollars is not a market signal. It’s a policy choice, repeated for twenty years.

We keep talking about Elon Musk’s wealth as if it fell out of the sky. It didn’t. It was built, piece by piece, by decisions that specific institutions made and could have made differently. If we want to understand extreme wealth concentration, we shouldn’t start with Musk’s personality. We should start with the machinery behind him.

Take procurement. SpaceX did not become a trillion-dollar company by winning in an open market against equally-resourced rivals. It became one by capturing a duopoly-adjacent position in U.S. government launch contracts. The company has been awarded roughly $22 billion in cumulative federal contracts from NASA, the Space Force, and the National Reconnaissance Office. After the Space Shuttle programme ended, the U.S. government still needed a reliable provider to launch astronauts, satellites, and national security payloads into space. With the Shuttle retired and few domestic alternatives available, much of that launch demand shifted to companies like SpaceX. The government’s launch spending had few other domestic providers to direct those funds toward. That’s not innovation outcompeting incumbents. That’s a state deciding who its preferred contractor would be, and then letting equity markets price in the certainty of that relationship. The IPO (Initial Public Offering) didn’t create Musk’s trillion. It just made visible what U.S. industrial policy had already decided.

Or take the regulatory environment around Tesla. Emissions credit schemes, EV tax rebates, state-level incentive packages to site factories these are not market forces. They are deliberate policy tools, and Tesla was positioned early to capture an outsized share of them: the company has earned close to $11 billion over the past decade simply by selling regulatory credits to rival automakers who needed them to stay compliant, a revenue stream analysts say has, at times, been the difference between profit and loss. This is  not a criticism of using regulatory credit systems. The problem is what lies behind the statement  “the market decided”;  that the rules of that market were written with specific winners already in mind.

This is the part mainstream economics training tends to skip. We learn perfect competition models where no single actor can be a price-maker, then walk into a world of defence contracts, patent monopolies, and regulatory capture, and act surprised when wealth pools around whoever has the best lobbyists and the best-timed political relationships. Institutions aren’t neutral referees standing outside the market. They are part of how the market gets made, and the people writing the rules are rarely the people the rules end up serving. In practice, the greatest gains often accrue to politically connected firms and economic elites.

Power relations matter here too, and not just in an abstract sense. Musk was the single largest donor of the 2024 U.S. election cycle, spending close to $290 million to help elect the current administration. That is not separate from being the recipient of favourable federal contracts and regulatory treatment afterward. Whether or not there’s a direct quid pro quo in any legal sense, the two facts sit in the same universe: money buys proximity to power, and proximity to power shapes which companies get de-risked by the state. Extreme wealth and political access reinforce each other in a loop that has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with position.

None of this means Musk hasn’t built genuinely difficult things. Reusable rockets are hard, and SpaceX’s engineers deserve real credit. But the gap between “built something hard” and “became the richest individual in recorded history” is not explained by engineering. It’s explained by which government, in which country, chose to spend public money making sure that engineering had a guaranteed customer.

So when the next newsletter, textbook, or seminar treats Musk’s trillion as evidence that markets reward value creation, ask the more useful question instead: which institutions made this possible?, who sat on the committees that wrote the contracts and the tax codes? and what would have to change structurally,not personally, to prevent extreme wealth from  concentrating in the hands of the few in the first place.?

That’s a policy conversation, not a personality conversation. And policy can be rewritten. Get involved with your local Rethinking Economics group, push for procurement and lobbying transparency in your own context, and don’t let “the market decided” go unchallenged the next time someone says it in your presence

For collaborations or networking/Connecting 

Email address: ackkabamba9@gmail.com