>>10608
>so no matter how you turn it I am printing money and buying your assets with that money.
>even if lets say I am generous, and we make a deal so that I print some money and give half of it to you and half of it for myself or it can be just 1% which I leave for myself and give all remaining to you.
>I will be still taking away your assets even if overall price of your assets will be growing and you will be under impression that you are gaining something.
You do realize that your entire example is rendered mute the moment you introduce global economics; where, when you give me the money (And before the global economy has a chance to correct itself), I then proceed to transfer the money into a more stable currency, thereby gaining an even larger amount of money than I did before. OR, alternatively, using the money to buy OTHER assets and possessions that increase my worth.
>After this crisis we will have fewer rich people than we had before.
That isn't how it works. If you pooled together ALL the money in the world, and divided it equally between all 8 billion people; within five years, EVERYTHING would be back to the way it was in the first place. Post-Soviet Russia is living proof of this: http://archive.ph/MCwNU
Also, WEALTH IS MORE THAN JUST HOW MANY ZEROS ARE IN YOUR CHECKING ACCOUNT. In fact, majority of so-called "billionaires" don't have even a fraction of their wealth on hand because majority of it is tired up in assets and possessions: https://kupdf.net/download/j-paul-getty-how-to-be-rich_5907ff23dc0d605a33959eb4_pdf
That's also leaving out that your "portfolio income" (As in, your "worth" as an individual) is also based in your experience in the world.

So, while you're worried about controlling one specific TOOL (Which is all that money is), those people thinking bigger are searching for alternative ways that are not as limited and more universally used and organically given value.