I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Can you explain how you feel that even a massive redistribution of wealth would make meaningful changes (and lasting) in everyone's lives from those who have their finances predominantly leveraged? I say it like this, because most rich people aren't exactly hoarding gems and tying up their resources in fictional valuations (a small portion does, of course). Mostly those resources are tied back into the means of production.

Even if you take Musk's fortune at 200bn and redistribute it to every US citizen, that is ~600 bucks a person, one time. But that would require liquidating his leveraged portfolio which is nearly all in a small number of companies, which generate jobs and thus opportunities for individuals who otherwise may not have. Sure, that would free a very tiny amount of resources up for people to do something with, hopefully some of it very handy. But how do you quantify that to justify the execution of such a plan? (e.g. pilot programs that show it would be a net good for everyone)

While those individuals would no doubt spend it in the economy, how do you theorize this creates a net positive long term meaningful impact?