All the artificial wealth in the hands of idealistic elites. All based on a contrived economy of the dollar.
You did. See:
(Simple spelling/typo mistake fixed)
False Dichotomy. It can be a third option.
Adverse consequences are not the best predictors.
False Dichotomy. 
You question?
Forbes doesn’t report on the truly wealthiest in the world.
Try 0ver 500 trillion. And that can be easily doubled.
…surprisingly naive guy.
Money is an idea moreso than an object. Especially today with virtual credit and international banks.
Money is the quantitative measure of the ability to accomplish. In physics, it is called “power” or the duration of energy through time. And to reduce the populous’ money to a measure of energy through time, “power”, is to reduce humanity to merely physics. Why would any sane person want to do that? But then we aren’t talking about sane people.
The power to accomplish within a society is necessarily a measure of the powerlessness of its adversary. Thus to obtain power within a society is necessarily to take it away from another. But then perhaps they were not using it at the time. Most often such power is being used for merely a different purpose than someone else had in mind.
The most wealth, just as the most power, is obtained by pursuing and sacrificing everything to the purpose of obtaining more of it. The most power is not a concentration of humanity, but rather the lack of it.
When wealth is the goal, humanity is the refuge. Trillionaires serve no one but themselves and even that goal is soon lost.
The statistics You povided on account of unlisted hidden wealthy, it may be;credible even as we speak, and Bill Gates is reported with a mere one hundred billion, who may people be with a trillion?
Maybe the true wealth is grossly under rated in fear of such exposure may cause irreparable damage to world economy.
I think he’s referencing some conspiracy theory type stuff. You know…the illuminati have like katrillions in secret money.
What if it is no mere conspiracy? Long time ago, i remember reading a piece called ,‘Who Dare call it a Conspiracy?’ published by the John Birch Society. I am willing to plead no contest regarding this possibility.
It probably is a conspiracy. But the real question is whether or not there’s anything you can do about it, or anything to be gained in the event that you could.
This is one aspect of money, true.
No, in physics this is call measurement. Power is a different thing. Though as this is the world of humans, and belief is a strong thing, a measurement can be power.
Maybe, but you are the one doing it, not money and not any reasonable economic model would, as this would quickly be thrown out when put into action.
I don’t know, why did you?
Nope. Humans gain more power from helping each other than we have ever gained from killing each other. It’s on the backs of long since dead people doing amazing work that we are allowed to argue about “philosophy” in this form.
No, it is not, and you’ll repeatedly find that more can be done, can be gained for each individual if they don’t.
This is point blank wrong. Great wealth may be gained this way, but most wealth is gained by working hard. It’s why old people have money when they die, and young people have less when they start out.
But money, the thing Trillionaires have in amazing amounts, is a measurement of power, at best. I do agree that electricity (one form of power) does not require humanity. Money very much does though.
You are mistaken.
They don’t list many types of tradable goods such as extremely expensive art, artifacts, hidden contracts, and so on. The Rothschilds and the Rockefellers have real tradable wealth far in excess of 200 trillion.
Gauging by your other comments, you are “point blank” clueless in this arena.
How do we know the market value of a “priceless” piece of art?
You have to be in the game to know.
And you have to know someone in the game merely to gauge.
So we can’t know?
“We” can’t even know who “we” actually is.
So what can we know? I mean…I got a feeling that we can know who we is. I can’t say I’ve planned a big argument that we can, just that I have a feeling that we can be defined. If we can’t know who we is, then what can we know?
Only what you can rationally deduce.
… and you already have a good idea how restricted that particular “we” is.