Analogies like this one are exactly why all these headlines about the super-wealthy are misleading. When people see these astronomical sums they think in terms of actual things they can buy because that's the main thing money represents to most, but those big numbers don't represent actual goods and services consumed by the super-wealthy and their fraction of overall global consumption is much, much smaller than the wealth difference. In fact, the fact that the super-wealthy spend so much less of their wealth than ordinary people was originally one of the arguments people used to justify wealth redistribution especially after the global financial crisis in 2008 - and it might've made sense then.

The current crisis we're in is not rooted in the financial system but one of underlying supply, though, and it's not possible to fix this by redistributing the resources the super-wealthy are consuming to ordinary people because they're not consuming enough. If you think of money as a claim on scarce resources, almost all the wealth of the super-wealthy is not real money. It's just an imaginary figure produced by multiplying their shareholdings by what the amount of actual money they could trade a single share for.