>> If we suddenly took all the money from all the billionaires this would make zero difference to poverty It would make a massive difference. Without billionai

>> If we suddenly took all the money from all the billionaires this would make zero difference to poverty It would make a massive difference. Without billionaires, there would be more millionaires[1], and their collective ability (and collective incentive) to invest their money efficiently would be far greater. More minds making more sophisticated investment decisions under more pressure using smaller amounts of money. A billionaire investor is a lazy investor. They can afford to make blanket decisions which ignore all the intricate negative ramifications of those decisions. When you factor in the inefficiencies created by corporate monopolies and index funds which reward lazy investors without any risk[2], the people who end up paying for those inefficiencies are members of the working class. [1] When we consider that supply tends to adjust to meet demand, we can deduce that if we were to artificially limit the amount of supply that any single person could reap the rewards from (which is equivalent to artificially limiting wealth accumulation of a single person), then we would need a larger number of people to supply the same quantity of goods/services. [2] The risk is essentially 0 because index funds such as S&P500 spread risk across many stocks such that only the complete and sudden collapse of human society could result in any significant loss of investment. As a human investor, if society were to collapse completely, you probably wouldn't survive anyway, so within the scope of human experience, your risk of living to see your investment fail is 0.