No that's just one of it's outcomes. The proper definition would be "a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution."

> that doesn't exactly apply to the world's (already) richest man.

Given the appropriate definition and his involvement in owning not only a social media company but also having a role in federal government policy and now apparently investigations I am completely baffled by your assertion.

> And who exactly would you look for to help the federal government build

I figured someone would summon this fallacy. He has acquired wealth. This does not demonstrate any skill in spending tax payer money efficiently in a regulated environment. This is particularly true if you're willing to assume that oligarchy played some part in his acquisition in the first place.

> if not someone who has built multiple successful businesses

He likes to call himself a founder. Of business that already existed and he purchases a controlling share in. It's amazing that people accept this distortion of reality.

> managing costs and outlays at impressive scale

Presumably he has people on the payroll who do this. I imagine that the entire financial success of these companies is not down to a single person. How does he find time to do anything in a day?

I imagine the federal government could, you know, just do the same thing. Hire qualified professionals to do the job?

> Not sure that tracks.

Outside of the reality distortion field that some people willingly occupy it most certainly does.