Can you turn everyone into a billionaire?

Cuba's former president, Fidel Castro died yesterday. From the Bay of Pigs to exploding cigars the US tried to kill him many times, but failed. Castro built an egalitarian system in Cuba based on free education and universal healthcare. The figures are impressive: 99.8% of adults are literate, 12% of GDP spent on healthcare, mortality rates lower than in the US and almost 50% of its parliament consist of women. On the other hand internet and mobile penetration is low and cars are mostly of 1950s vintage. GDP per capita was $51,486 in the US in 2015 while it was a meager $5351.30 in 2013 in Cuba. Why so much difference, when there is so much equality in Cuba while the US is extremely unequal. The US has the largest number of billionaires, at 536, in the world while 43% of people do not pay federal income tax and 14% do not pay either income or payroll taxes, presumably because they earn too little. An article by Rebeca Grynspan makes a case for equality because it increases growth in the economy. Common sense dictates that if poverty is eradicated we get a large number of people who become consumers. This increases tax collection, leads to greater investment, higher job creation and increasing wealth for the entire nation. Poverty means that the government has to spend money on social schemes to prevent hunger and epidemics, instead of spending on wealth creating projects, such as infrastructure. Violent crimes are relatively rare in  Cuba, while in the US rates, especially involving guns, are rising. With greater equality and lower crime rate Cuba should be richer than the US but it is not. Why? Maybe, in creating equality Cuba took away any incentive to innovate, to take risks or to work hard. On the other hand, the US economy was transformed by a bunch of entrepreneurs, who could feel what the public wanted and built up huge companies, which brought down costs and changed people's lives. In the process they created virtual monopolies, ruined others and lobbied politicians for lesser regulations on their activities. They were dubbed 'Robber Barons'. But they also performed a service. Henry Ford brought down the price of cars from $850 to $290, which meant that everyone could own a car, while Stanford and Harriman laid down 200,000 miles of railway tracks, which means that the US has the longest rail network in the world. Most of the wealthy today are massive technology companies. We can call them the 'Silicon Sultans' but Google, Facebook and Sype are free services. As the market changes they adapt to remain dominant. Is there a lesson in all this? Maybe, to become wealthy you have to reduce regulations and allow freedom to innovate. But the rich will always look for loopholes. Therein lies the problem. Wealth accumulates in a few hands while poverty is equal. Perhaps, Prime Minister Modi should take note.