That’s simply not how the economy works.
It is.
I’ll make a very simple example. If one person wants a piece of fried chicken, and another person wants money, the second person can create value through labor by raising and cooking chicken.
What does "creating value" mean? They aren't creating value, they're creating fried chicken. The value of which is determined by the domestic currency, how much of it is in circulation and various other state capitalist policies and regulations (which impact that market).
The first person can then trade their money for chicken, and they will both gain value from the trade.
Bruh you've strawmanned me by swapping "money" for "value". An objective, material thing for an abstract, subjective thing. It's also impossible to raise and cook chicken without first having money. It's almost impossible to "create" "value", in your terms, without first having "value". And the more "value" you have, the easier it is to create more "value". Meaning that it's far easier for the rich to make money than the poor.
On a large scale, people are constantly creating value, and feds basically print money to account for this. This can be tracked through our GDP.
This doesn't alter anything. The amount of money, at any given time, is still fixed. Increasing GDP doesn't benefit people in any way, if the vast majority of those gains go to the rich. GDP has been increasing in the west for the last 40 years while living standards for the majority have been worsening and people have become poorer. GDP is a top-down measure of the economy.
So, we can easily extend this logic to rich people. By creating a company, they’re creating a system that constantly provides value through products/services. When you buy something on Amazon, which I’m sure you have, you’re obviously gaining value because you voluntarily did that trade. This is why the economy is not a zero sum game.
Being able to flog consoomer shit is not providing "value". The free market religious mantra that by engaging in a transaction you're de facto gaining "value" from it is absolutely retarded, and assumes people act rationally and in their own interests, when they do not. It assumes people aren't subject to marketing, propaganda, laziness, selfishness, stupidity and myriad other social and human ills.
Amazon haven't provided value to the economy or society, they've been hugely destructive. They've almost singlehandedly destroyed the high street, put tens of thousands of businesses out of business, killed millions of jobs (which were better paid than the jobs they provide), built a monolithic monopoly that pays little to no tax, created the richest man in the world, who has bought out huge media outlets, killed working conditions and wages, and so on. For what benefit to people? Getting their consoomer shit a day earlier and a dollar cheaper.
There's not correlation with creating "value" and making money. Almost all the biggest businesses offer nothing of value whatsoever. While people who create cures for diseases make little money.
Finally, rich people are so rich because they own their own companies. They get huge paychecks too, but 99% of their worth is just from the valuation of their business.
99% of their worth is from exploiting the value of other people. Usually their labour. That's almost the only way you can become rich. No individual can provide the "value" to become a billionaire. Only in a capitalist system can they do this.
I’m not a big capitalism guy myself, and I don’t love the rich, but these are simply undeniable facts about the economy. It’s also how the west became so rich, to the point that the bottom 10% here is the top 10% in many other countries.
The global economy and domestic economies aren't equivalent and don't function in the same way. Again, this is why countries have their own currencies-- so they can control the value of their currency and everything within their own country. The west became so rich because of innovation, education, military domination and exploitation of foreign labour. A poor person in the west can move to a poor country and be rich, but the vast majority of people won't and don't do that, which makes the global economy, regarding individual wealth, redundant.
