Owning wealth, controlling wealth - Is there a difference?
Wealth created is value created!
Lately I've seen a lot of people concerned about the news that Amazon now has a net worth of over $1 trillion. I've heard a lot of arguments about how no single institution should control that much wealth; it's the same reason people love to hate billionaires. But regardless of what stance you take on that debate, I think it's worth pointing out that this is nothing new. In fact, there are already plenty of institutions in the world that control trillions of dollars worth of resources.
Public wealth vs private wealth.
The net worth of the U.S. federal government (not counting debts, since otherwise it would be very far into the negatives) is roughly $4 trillion - four times as much as Amazon. The U.S. federal government also brings in roughly $3.3 trillion in revenue every year, which is more than ten times what Amazon brings in. Proportionally speaking, the federal government collects about 80-85% of its net worth in revenue annually, a vastly higher rate of return than virtually any private enterprise (except perhaps startups experiencing early booms).
This wealth is controlled by the U.S. Congress, comprised of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators: 535 people in total. Thus, each individual Congressmen could be said to have control over roughly $7.47 billion. Regardless of their personal net worth (which ranges from Kelly Loeffler at $500 million all the way down to John Lewis, who reportedly has just barely over $1,000 in total assets), they're all effectively billionaires in terms of the control they wield over resources and the effect they have on the world.
But they're public servants, it's not their money!
One might object: "But that's not the same, they can't do what they like with the money! They're obligated to serve the interests of the American public! Marco Rubio or Nancy Pelosi or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can't go and spend that money on a mansion or a yacht!" Except Jeff Bezos can't go off and do whatever he wants with his billions either: his net worth is almost entirely comprised of his shares in Amazon, which can't easily be divested from the company. And as CEO, he's obliged to do whatever is in Amazon's best interests - an obligation enforced far more strictly than the Congressman's obligation to do right by the American people.
Another objection might be that anyone can technically get elected to Congress, but only an infinitesimally small number of people ever become billionaires. But the math doesn't hold up. There are 621 billionaires in the U.S., out of a total population of 328.8 million people, which means that the average American citizen has a 1 in 528,502 chance of becoming one. That's a very slim chance! Yet it's still slightly higher than the chance of becoming a member of Congress: 1 in 613,457. The dream that you, as an ordinary American, might one day get elected to the House or Senate is no more plausible than the dream that you might one day be a billionaire; in fact, it's slightly less plausible. (This is not meant to discourage anyone who is seeking to become a Congressman, or a billionaire for that matter; it's simply meant to shine light on the fact that the two are about equally plausible, despite people viewing the former as much more realistic.)