Not trying to argue, per se. I'm saying that you gave me a lot to think about.

> There's not a finite amount of wealth.

I think there is a finite amount of wealth, at any given time, same as "money". Money is a transactable medium to measure value, rather than as a type of good on its own. The medium can change region to region and over time.

Wealth is an aggregate of all valuables you possess, including expected gains. Wealth is also subjective, because of these properties. People agree on some approximations for the purposes of transactions with money.

> Making a company and having it valued at whatever value, does not remove that amount of wealth from other people.

Depends on perspective, I would say. When the value rises in a public company, even when it's just the expectation, you have people dumping their wealth (as money) into the company. So yes, it does for large public companies. While it does grant some rights, in a practical sense it's a hole you dump money into with the expectation that you can reach in and take out some amount in the future. I can understand this is what is envisioned, when people talk about wealth as zero sum. I don't agree, but I get what they are going at.

> If that were the case, there'd be as much wealth today as there was 1000 years ago.

Wealth is partially based on expectation. The growth in population fuels increases in wealth, because that's the part of the equation that is speculative.