1,000 millionaires, or 1 billionaire? Bruce Springsteen is in Abdul El-Sayed’s corner ‘100%’ on the answer — and some longtime fans are furious

While some fans were celebratory and on the same page as The Boss, others expressed a range of disappointment and sharp criticism.

“Shame on you. You are not educated to understand what your endorsement means to so many life long fans and good people that are fighting antisemitism and hatred for thousands of years,” one commenter wrote in a collection of posts from Fox News. “You are acting like an ignorant uneducated school child.”

Beyond the constitutional fight Springsteen highlighted, El-Sayed has built much of his political identity on a case against the billionaire class. The U.S. is home to a record 989 billionaires, according to Forbes, and the country’s 400 wealthiest people are now worth a record $8 trillion. El-Sayed wants that capital spread wider.

“I’d rather have an economy that makes 1,000 millionaires than one billionaire,” he said in a clip posted to his X account, arguing that most billionaires park money in the stock market rather than in new businesses, which amounts to “investing in other billionaires” instead of in opportunity.

The redistribution argument

The Michigan Senator-elect takes the example of NVIDIA, arguing that a billionaire investing in its stock isn’t helping make new jobs. El-Sayed also said this is especially relevant since the top 7 companies on the Fortune 500 are making the most money, while “everyone else is kind of dipping.”

El-Sayed, who is a progressive Democrat, has previously argued billionaires should face regulations that require them to help build vital infrastructure, like schools and roads. El-Sayed doubled down on that argument in the clip on X, saying the strongest economy will come from greater wealth distribution.

“If you’re serious about building the most productive possible economy, take that excess money that would have been parked into the S&P 500 and invest it in good schools, good infrastructure, healthcare, childcare, which by the way, all make jobs, a ton of jobs, most of which are very difficult to automate,” El-Sayed argued.

The billionaire problem

Whether billionaires are good for the economy is a question that’s been met with fierce debate. Other progressive politicians like Senator Bernie Sanders have campaigned for a wealth tax on billionaires, even likening them to oligarchs. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has also taken aim, saying he doesn’t think billionaires should even exist.

The argument against billionaires typically focuses on wealth remaining at the top and the need for greater redistribution. Critics often argue that concentrated wealth drives inequality, creates monopolies and influences politics. Supporters of policies like that billionaire tax say the ultra wealthy should be forced to pay higher taxes so their money can be shared.

But others have argued billionaires actually serve the economy — and their mass fortunes and investments help stimulate growth.

While El-Sayed argues that stock investments are not productive for the economy, supporters of billionaires say it’s these investments that help prop up profitable companies, many of which employ thousands of people.

Cato Institute scholar Chris Edwards argues that America’s wealthiest people have created new products and competition that has ushered in widespread gains. When businesses innovate, everyone benefits.

Edwards uses the example of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who has a net worth of $375.4 billion, according to Forbes. The vast majority of his fortune comes from his part ownership of Amazon, which Edwards argues serves the economy.