Yeesh, I go from one side to the other. Ok, for starters, I’m not quite getting where you’re coming from on this stock market thing… are you saying that no wealth is actually created or destroyed in the stock market, or that no more money comes out of it than went into it? While I understand that there has to be a seller for every buyer (and vice versa), a stock that has plunged thirty points in value is still worth thirty points less because of the perceived value that makes it only saleable at that lower price, not vice versa.
And you’re also making a huge assumption with that “no manipulation” thing, (how do you define “manipulation”?) and are apparently arguing the inherent and uncontrovertible efficiency of market mechanisms. That kind of market fundamentalism gets knocked out of economists after their junior year; there’s no such thing as a perfect market, and that includes the stock market.
As for the other bit? Are you going all Austrian (or worse, supply side) on me? I would most strenuously argue with this concept that redistribution is only valuable from a social instead of an economic standpoint. Even if Keynes’ theories had problems (which are largely solved, IMO, by stickiness and a focus on monetary instead of fiscal stimuli), he pretty conclusively proved that supply-side economic stimuli (such as the investment-centric picture of the economy you seem to be arguing in favour of) aren’t enough; you need to address the demand side as well, which is part of the reason redistribution exists. Too much capital investment without consumption to match can lead to recession, as too many products chase too few consumers. (And yes, I’m aware of Say’s law; even Marx pretty handily dismissed that one).
Besides, you’re vastly overestimating the amount of income that would sanely get redistributed and are overestimating the amount of difference redistribution makes. Concentration can be useful, but this money doesn’t disappear, it gets circulated like everything else, including back into capital. Bill Gates isn’t rich just because he has these investments but because he owns Microsoft, which trades software for money. Assuming he can keep his stake in MS, the money gets redistributed, people buy things (including software), and soon Bill is rich again… or if he isn’t, somebody else is, (who invests their money) and you still get those natural concentrations that you’re talking about.
One thing confuses me though: “synergisms”? Surely you could describe capital formation without buzzwords. 