> > Would a redistribution of that wealth imply better living standards for everyone?
> No.
Why not?
> The fabulously wealthy aren't spending their billions on consumption.
Naturally not, that would be impractical. However, their immense wealth affords them immense power in society and that is of concern.
> You're mistaking wealth and captial for money.
I see this repeated very often by people defending the ultra rich and never understood why they think it was a good reply. Especially in this case, as their point was some people barely scrape by while others have so much money it’s more than they can reasonably spend. Nothing they said indicated they were confused about the difference between money and wealth.
> The fabulously wealthy aren't spending their billions on consumption.
True. They don't have to. They can and they would if it came to it.
> You're mistaking wealth and capital for money.
Neither. I'm saying they hold an insane amount of power over society. Also, nobody has to own so much money. There will be lenders begging you take their money if you're powerful enough.
No.
> I mean on one hand you have people who can't afford housing and food, and the other can't meaningfully spend whatever they are bestowed with.
The fabulously wealthy aren't spending their billions on consumption.
You're mistaking wealth and captial for money.