>>83062807
You might have heard that an asteroid holds tens of trillions of dollars worth of metals! Oh! If only we could get someone up there to mine it, then the economy would be bustling with untold wealth and splendor! But no, actually. The valuation placed on the asteroid is purely speculative, and if the asteroid were indeed captured or mined, there wouldn't necessarily be buyers available to purchase every single trillion dollars worth of that asset.
The actual wealth of the world does not increase as you would hope it to. The availability of various minerals may increase as price decreases, which allows more people to access those minerals and the products made with those minerals (say, spoons or cars), but in order for your asset (the asteroid) to provide wealth, you need someone to purchase it. The value that people assign to random rocks in space is purely speculative.
The valuation of a corporation is speculative and doesn't actually reflect real assets that can be redistributed to manage wealth inequality. Bezos can't just sell $100 billion worth of his company and give that to poor people even if he wanted to, and there would need to be buyers who would pay that price as the stocks enter the market.
When Bezos receives a dividend payout from his ownership of various stocks, this is considered "income" for tax purposes:
>https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc404
When Bezos sells stocks to purchase something large, again there is a massive transfer of taxes to the government. What you are hung up on is the imaginary valuation of a company (like Amazon or Tesla) that doesn't reflect actual money. Compared to the problem if the asteroid, the problem is actually worse, because almost all of Bezos' valuation comes from the very intangible speculation on how much wealth the company can bring, or even how much investors are willing to pump the stock, but there is no asset that can be divided among the poor to feed them.
