[alpha_squared]

I don't think you can have people who are wealthy without having people who aren't. Wealth is a relative measure, therefore there are those who aren't.

Let's imagine a scenario where 400 people each have $1, the average wealth is therefore $1 per person. If, however, we have 1% of people (4 in the same scenario) have $2 each, the overall wealth is still $1 per person on average, however the 1% would have $2 per person and the remaining 99% would have $0.99 per person. If we skew that a little more, let's have 50% of the total wealth ($200) in the hands of the 1% (again, just 4 people). The average for the population is still $1 per person, but the 1% now have $50 each and the remaining 99% have just over $0.50 each.

I get that this is an exercise in explaining what zero-sum is, something you don't believe this situation reflects, but it's important to recognize that people build wealth by acquiring it from somewhere else. If there was an infinite supply of money (there isn't), then we could have a conversation about this not being zero-sum. I don't think it's a good faith discussion to start with the assumption that money is infinite.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

The scary question that comes after that ( similarly with world population ) is what we can do about it. The solutions tend to scare people, who have the most to lose ( and money to prevent any actual change ). Hell, I personally think that there has to be a hard limit on power ( money ). Where that limit is up to debate, but it has to exist somewhere. The power of one billionaire is way to excessive and comparable to that of old monarch. The only thing they are missing is an army ( and a cheap army may only be a generation away ).

[pjmorris]

On the other hand, money is one of the most plentiful, elements of the economy.

"There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." - Richard Feynman

Money is also the most fungible element of the economy. Given monetary policy, particularly the Fed's policies of the last decade or so, it is also not good faith to assume money as a constant.

[alpha_squared]

> it is also not good faith to assume money as a constant.

Agreed. It's not constant and it's not infinite. The question then becomes at what rate does it grow and is that rate higher or lower than the stratification of wealth. If it's higher, it's either hyperinflation or wealth accumulation appears logarithmic in growth. If it's lower, it's either deflation or wealth accumulation appears exponential in growth.

It appears to be lower and wealth accumulation does, indeed, appear to be exponential. We're also completely glossing over just who it is that's likely to be wealthy and suddenly it's not just an economic issue, but a socioeconomic one.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Money isn't infinite, but billionaires don't have a billion dollars of money. They have a billion dollars of assets, and it's very possible to create new assets without creating new money. When people say e.g. Zuckerberg is worth $100 billion, that doesn't mean $100 billion of money has flowed to him or is locked up in his vaults.