I don't disagree there. I think both points are valid and non contradictory. Even if they may seem to be on the surface. Assets are very different from having pallets of cash laying around. The Left loves to confuse people on those two, obviously different, things.

You can own a business that has a value of 100 million dollars. Technically, your net worth is a 100 million dollars. Still, that business can - in a year - lose a million dollars, while still paying all their employees, and making all the great things it makes. And it can still, be very healthy. So, you're 'rich', your company is still worth 100 million dollars, but you are losing money that year. A thousand people could lose their jobs and their livelihoods if you weren't 'rich', even though you yourself made nothing and even lost money. You can be 'rich', while your employees make more money than you - while at the same time having fewer worries. People need to look at more when they consider a person's net worth.

Especially true with people starting new businesses. It's not all sunshine and roses. It is very possible to be a wage slave - slave.

Also, forgive my rudimentary understanding here. I'm learning. There's a difference between invested wealth and liquid wealth. An investment, when it's a business, is where you're putting your money into other people. You don't have that money anymore. What you have is a business you may or may not be able to sell for a certain amount of money, and a responsibility. It works different from having a job where someone is investing in you. So, the rules are different. It's, just, not easily apparent how it works to someone who hasn't run a business or invested in one.