This argument doesn't clearly stand on its own in my opinion.
It starts with the implicit assumption that profit is in fact a determiner of societal good, that a soup kitchen which gives away food is not doing any good since they have no profit, while an HFT firm who notices some minor inefficiency in the stock market and makes billions is doing lots of societal good, that the government maintaining roads is less good than a contractor who is able to profit 5x as much by over-charging the taxpayer.
I think the increasing wealth divide is clearly good for the rich, but I question if it's good for society as a whole.
How many people would be able to buy their own version of Twitter that is analogous to their net worth in the way Musk did? Not that many people. Your average person isn’t getting the sort of loans or interest rates. Or other supposedly good at predicting the future but again they are also the most powerful. Like the $7B+ Musk has raised from other investors so far.
After the crypto bubble collapses, I think what we'll discover is that it was a great mechanism to transfer wealth out of people who badly want to predict the future to people who have so much money that they don't really care how it plays out - it's just some small percentage hedge of their gigantic portfolio.
This is one reason bubbles are so harmful to regular people - if they join in, they could lose their shirts. But the truly wealthy are just picking between years of underperforming returns vs risk.
No
The effect is transfer money from unlucky to lucky fools. Nothing in that is good for anything, not even the "lucky fools". You are lucky once, not next time.
Being a fool is not shameful. But you need to know yourself and stay out of speculative markets
interesting how in your model wealth inequality doesn’t affect society at all. if one guy has a trillion and everyone else has a penny, it’s good for our society, bc he will invest in things that succeed, because no one else has a chance to succeed.