You're completely wrong. Redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor works wonderfully. It's called the welfare state, and countries that do it best not only have much lower poverty than the US, they invariably have greater GDP per capita per hour worked than the US too.

Yes, but it's good to note that those rich welfare states still have billionaires and still have income and wealth inequalities.

Redistribution does not rely on fixed pie fallacy. The idea that the root of poverty is "hoarding" does.

Also, somehow you seem to be under an impression that the US does not implement the welfare state paradigm. Did you ever look at the budget and see how much is spent on mandatory and discretionary welfare programs? The fact that it did not fix poverty should give you an idea that maybe it's not Elon Musk being too greedy that is the problem here.

The root of poverty is hoarding. Poverty is a shortage of money - we can fix it redistributing money from rich to poor, but we don’t do this because rich people don’t want that and would rather hoard it.

The US has some good welfare state elements, but overall it’s very bad and far inferior to places that do it well. The consequence is vastly higher poverty rates.

Taking money from people who aren't spending it and giving it all to people who will spend it all immediately doesn't fix poverty. It just causes hyperinflation.

No it doesn’t. The Nordics don’t suffer from hyperinflation, in spite of their much larger welfare states.

Redistribution increases demand in the short term, but in the longer term production shifts accordingly to match. Which really is the whole point: Changing the economy to produce more of what ordinary people need.

> in the longer term production shifts accordingly to match

Isn't the long-run aggregate supply curve basically completely price inelastic?

I’m saying that production shifts to produce more of what poor people want (food etc) and less of what that rich people want (Lamborghinis etc).