I'm not sure that user is pushing a particular agenda you describe. Nor does the name of a book prove much of anything.
The global nature of today's economy, the complexity of navigating commerce and industry, and the sheer magnitude of output required to be profitable, makes it hard to do anything all by yourself. If we consider each person their own island with cash in- and outflow, then everyone is self-made. If we consider the global network of money changing hands, no one is self-made.
And I have always understood the word to be used in that sense.
See the Collins definition (emphasis mine):
Self-made is used to describe people who have become successful and rich through their own efforts, especially if they started life without money, education, or high social status.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/self-ma...
If I was capable of issuing every possible order to every employee, am I more entitled to the profits derived from their output if they happen to do something I mentioned?
HN Argumentum_ad_dictionarium at its finest. It's getting tiring.
The major difference between inheriting money and attracting investors is that you need to be more convincing for the latter to get the money on offer. The investor to whom you are otherwise a stranger might want to put some contract together to make sure they see a slice of the pie if you're successful (big if!), but if you fail they don't demand their money back.
But how can you call it "self-made" if you're using someone else's money? It doesn't matter which pocket it comes from, at some point very early in the process you are dependent on the pocketbooks of others.
Didn't realize it was that easy. Why doesn't everyone just do this one little trick?
This rhetoric is not uncommon in business.
You have spent/are spending money so that eventually it comes back as more money. What else is "investment"?