If you're talking about the "Great Leap Forward" years (late 50s-early 60s), somewhere between 18 and 45 million Chinese people died, most of them by starving to death. The Chinese economy did not grow during that period. It shrank.
That's an odd definition of "brought out of poverty".
You're assuming you will be able to keep this capital forever. History demonstrates that most of even the richest families don't stay such after 3 or 4 generations.
Ask any Family Office managing finances for HNW investors and they'll give you examples.
* Decreasing marginal utility of wealth.
* Difficulty investing as wealth increases. Capital accumulation lowers rates, incentivizing individuals to spend (h/t Reisman)
* Empathy and philanthropy (one can't just ignore this, it's human action all the same).
* The calculation problem builds in inefficiencies as organizations grow (h/t Peter Klein).
Intergenerational differences in ability and goals and the squandering of inheritances.
Entrepreneurship and innovation. Punctuated equilibrium (h/t Schumpeter).
The fact that we'll probably squander that too, or it will decrease in value, only strengthens the questions... so what do we do after that?
Wealth creation through creativity, like we do every time, that's what we do next.
This article was wasted time
Catchy one liners "Wealth creation through creativity" might help you sleep at night, but seriously, our creative endeavours have never produced anywhere near the amount of capital the resource sector has... What happens when we either get so efficient at resources that they cost nothing, or we run out of the resource?
There is no ultimate conclusion to Capitalism, the system continues to create more prosperity, and capital continues to seek higher forms of productivity and profit, which perpetually raises the standard of living for any nation that deploys Capitalism with its well understood requirements (which include a strong judicial system, property rights, et al). New innovations and breakthroughs perpetually lead to new industry and expansion, creating perpetually greater numbers of jobs (which is why America doesn't only have 500,000 jobs available today; and America isn't even a properly functioning Capitalist nation, it's a poorly functioning highly regulated mixed economy).
More generally, Malthus had much more historical support for his thesis (that population would quickly grow to consume all the food available). But the rules changed.
http://www.forbes.com/global2000/
Only four of the top 20 could reasonably be described as "resource" companies (oil companies, in every case).
It certainly isn't a natural resource like oil or iron ore.
What would you call it?
Capitalism generates capital. Yay for us, we now have lots of capital. But once you've generated all the capital, and maximised all the profits to the point of driving surplus value to 0. What then?
* Also a major nitpick, most of that billion were brought out of poverty in China in the 1950s at the peak of Maoism/Communism... so you're point is kind ironic, no? The majority of the remainder were also in China during DengXiao ping driven state run capitalism or "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics"... So even if you weren't missing the point, the point you are making is still very moot.