>Someone had to trade the money that ended up in the billionaire's pocket. Presumably they received something of more value to themselves than the money, otherw

>Someone had to trade the money that ended up in the billionaire's pocket. Presumably they received something of more value to themselves than the money, otherwise they wouldn't have made the trade. That abstract reasoning seem to miss a lot. Where I live, rent is crazy expensive. Rich people own their own homes. Almost everyone I know rents, giving a lot of money to people who need it less than they do. (I don't even dream of ever owning a house here. A cheap one is >$1m.) It's like a Monopoly game near the end, all the money going one way. So sure, you could say not-being-homeless is 'of more value to themselves than the money' but it would be a weird way of putting it.