Let's say we start out with everyone having enough bananas (money) to be healthy and well for a week. When a few individuals in the group hoard (and not share)

Let's say we start out with everyone having enough bananas (money) to be healthy and well for a week. When a few individuals in the group hoard (and not share) stratospheric amount of bananas, the rest of the group runs through their existing bananas and there will be far less bananas available for everyone else in the group (or if the gov prints bananas then loads of artificial bananas with far less nutrients per banana, resulting in the same net lack of nutrition for everyone else) Today's means of exchange is money and this money is based on artificial scarcity, just like nutritious bananas are not infinitely abundant, so if someone hoards huge amounts of bananas to themselves, the rest of the group will suffer as they eat thru their existing store of bananas. If 10 monkeys hoarded as much bananas as 3.1B monkeys we would seek to exterminate those monkeys and wipe out their genetic footprint from the face of the earth (this latter part would be genocidal, not recommended, but some would harbor the thought) because it would be clear that they're causing a huge imbalance in the system, and a great deal of suffering. But if the monkeys are Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, we put them on the covers of magazines and consider them an extreme example of success. Obviously, we're being manipulated to think that such extreme hoarding is what successful people must do and that it is a good thing. "Greed is good" and all of that. Added later in response to the "pie is not fixed" and the "economy is not a zero-sum game": There are limited resources on this planet. You can't have massive population growth with 10 people holding as much leverage to consume those limited resources as nearly half of the population and still have a balanced system. We can talk about systems that exist in non-equilibrium states but massive imbalance when it comes to the allocation of finite resources coupled with population growth is equivalent to massive suffering Yet another clarification: It's not just the actual consumption but also the leverage/power to consume and the power to give, which holds political power over the rest of the group, as they can use that as a carrot for politicians and non-profits. They have the power to do so much good as well as the power to do not much good, or even anti-good. It causes suffering for a few to hold that much power. Try to transcend the metaphor and build your more accurate picture of what is being conveyed rather than just dismissing that there is anything wrong with the current picture. One last thought on this: The basic problem is that there is a massive imbalance of power/leverage due to the massive wealth gap. In socialism, the ruling class has that power. Neither capitalism nor socialism lead to fair and balanced allocation of resources/power/leverage. We don't have to settle for either. ...