Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t believe in billionaires. 

On a podcast the other day, she said that it’s impossible to make a billion dollars without lying, cheating or stealing. 

“There’s a certain level of wealth and accumulation that is unearned, right,” AOC declared.

“You can’t earn a billion dollars. You just can’t earn that.

“You can get market power, you can break rules, you can abuse labor laws, you can pay people less than what they’re worth, but you can’t earn that.”

The New York congresswoman makes it sound as though our billionaires are the equivalent of Russian oligarchs who got their riches through government favor, when in reality they tend to be epic entrepreneurs and legendary investors who create stupendous value out of nothing. 

Typical of her, AOC is taking a strength of American society — its openness to talent and innovation — and portraying it as a fundamental problem.

No rational person looks at the top 10 list of wealthiest people in the United States and thinks, “What have any of those people done for us?”

It’s hard to imagine life now without Amazon, Tesla, Google or Facebook, for example. 

Judging by the list, becoming a billionaire is quite simple — all it requires is unbelievable talent matched to ferocious will and prodigious executive ability, resulting in a world-changing business enterprise. 

The idea that any of the most famous US entrepreneurs got where they are through, say, wage theft is laughable. 

The transformative nature of these businesses is self-evident. 

Jeff Bezos didn’t just open up a corner store, or a department chain: He revolutionized the retail industry.

He saved Americans untold dollars through cheaper goods and spared them untold time and inconvenience by obviating the need to travel to and from a retail outlet.

There’s also the fact that these enterprises wouldn’t exist absent millions of consumers deciding that they are useful to them.

If Facebook had 300,000 users rather than 3 billion, Mark Zuckerberg wouldn’t be so wealthy. 

Defending her categorical dismissal of the possibility of legit billionaires, AOC tried to clarify on X by saying someone can “make” a billion dollars, but that’s different than “earning” it. 

She cited as an example Airbnb, blaming it for high housing prices in the United States. 

This is a bizarre accusation to make against a platform that simply allows people interested in renting out their homes or apartments on a short-term basis to connect with people interested in renting them.

Again, a concern like Airbnb wouldn’t be so successful if people didn’t find it valuable. 

The Washington Post points out that guests spent an astonishing $30 billion on Airbnb rentals in the first quarter of this year, while the company’s net income was a relatively paltry $160 million.

New York City, by the way, has basically banned Airbnb — and still has a hideously expensive real-estate market. 

Now, it’s certainly true that businesses maneuver for advantage, and work to avoid regulatory costs and impose them on competitors.

The best way to prevent firms leveraging public policy for their advantage, though, is to have minimal state involvement in our economy in the first place.

Needless to say, this is the opposite of the approach favored by the socialist AOC. 

One can, for instance, fairly criticize Elon Musk for getting tax credits for Tesla’s electric cars, but the green-energy extremist AOC actually favored those credits (President Donald Trump eliminated them).

The socialist economy favored by the likes of AOC would be more static and less free.

It would lavish subsidies on businesses engaged in favored activities and punish businesses engaged in disfavored ones.

The economy would, in general, be more politicized.

There might be fewer billionaires, but we’d be poorer for it. 

Despite what AOC thinks, becoming a billionaire isn’t easy, and it’s not possible without creating substantial benefits for the rest of society.

Becoming a celebrity congresswoman who is hostile to the sources of American success and who evangelizes for economic ignorance is, unfortunately, much easier. 

X: @RichLowry