The premise here, which needs to be shown, is that the megarich are consuming so much that there is not enough stuff left for everyone else. But the rich don't eat much more than the comfortable. They have bigger houses, but not hundreds of times bigger houses. They don't use thousands of times as much healthcare as the average person. So how is their wealth responsible for poverty?

What is "growth" but the availability of more stuff? The billionaire's next billion will come from supplying more of something that people want. How is that a bad thing? The problem is not the concentration of wealth; it is the lack of outputs. There are not too many billionaires. There are too many people.

Capitalism is the best economic system because it maximizes outputs. The super-rich are so rich because the discounted present value of the future cash flows from creating so much useful stuff is so great. Their wealth is a measure of what is available for people to consume. That this stuff is created by people who want to be rich is a feature, not a bug. Greed is bad, but outputs are good. Capitalism harnesses greed to create outputs. How is that not brilliant? (If we understand politics as a form of collective bargaining, regulation of capitalism becomes part of the system, not a rejection of it.)

To be sure, resources are being wasted. What could the resources devoted to mining bitcoin produce in the way of food? Or cures for cancer? Or affordable housing? No system is perfect. But the one feature of capitalism that is not a problem for sustainability is the wealth of billionaires. That wealth, may be a political problem, and I am all for breaking up dynastic wealth via taxes, especially transfer taxes. But that's not the subject of this article.