1. the wealth of such people corresponds solely to an increase in the pool of available wealth (as opposed to just redistribution from other people), and
2. that increase is solely attributable to them,
it remains true that the distribution of the wealth pool is an arbitrary social choice. Billionaires being billionaires deprives other people of resources, by definition.
If a billionaire increased the size of society’s pie by more than their total amount of pie, they’ve made both themself and the rest of society overall better. You can argue that none of them have done this, but I don’t agree that it’s obvious or definitionally true that none of them have.
Example: what value to assign to the productivity benefits that Amazon and AWS have created for individuals, companies etc and society in general? I think we can all agree that it is an enormous amount in dollar terms.
1. saved money does not necessarily represent an increase in wealth. A rich individual can save against the will of the rest of the population. When you remember that total debt = total credit (savings on your bank account) then you are basically keeping people waiting and making them unable to pay their debts back.
1. the wealth of such people corresponds solely to an increase in the pool of available wealth (as opposed to just redistribution from other people), and
2. that increase is solely attributable to them,
it remains true that the distribution of the wealth pool is an arbitrary social choice. Billionaires being billionaires deprives other people of resources, by definition.