So you are explaining why the rich get less than what I calculated
No. Not even close. I’m explaining that GDP is a terrible metric to look at this problem. You need to look at wealth holdings. And the rich own basically all wealth.
The whole point is people are obsessed by the rich having ridiculous wealth on paper because of owning companies, but them owning companies does not take anything away from society.
So this is wrong in two ways. The first bit with “wealth on paper” is wrong, because the rich own the wealth. Loads of it are tied up in stocks, sure, but it is still wealth. And they use it like we use other fiat currencies, so to them stocks are just as “real” as USD is “real”.
The second is that the economy is a finitely expandable pool that is itself finite. So it is ultimately a zero sum game.
There is a limited number of hot dogs that can be sold in a year. Every hot dog sold by vendor A is a hotdog that cannot be sold by vendor B. You can advertise and brainwash the population into buying more hotdogs, but there is a limit to how many people will buy hotdogs. Every stock that is owned by rich asshat A is a stock that cannot be owned by worker B.
So yes, the rich owning all the wealth directly takes away from the rest of us.
The factories produce goods for people and who receive the goods is determined by who buys the goods which is determined mainly by income, not wealth.
“Who is able to buy X” isn’t a relevant question to the problem of wealth inequality/hoarding.
Or let me put it in different words: Let’s say you and I have the same wage across our lives.
This analogy immediately falls apart, because I earn about $40/hr.
Bezos collects the equivalent of about $8,000,000/hr.
The only taxes we should have should be a land value tax, and a pollution/carbon tax.
It helps everyone become richer by increasing the overall economic output.
The stock market doesn’t increase economic output, not do I care if it does. Economic output should not be the goal. Sustainable human survival should be.