About half of the world has no wealth to speak of. They don't own their residence, they live paycheck to paycheck, and if you compare their assets to liabilities, there isn't much in the plus column. So even if they have a comfortable place to live, have adequate food and medical care, and can afford to go live in relative prosperity, they have no wealth. They might live next to a neighbor who lives a very similar lifestyle, but who owns his residence and has built up equity over a long period of time. If you looked at them side by side, one might have wealth (assets over liabilities) of $5000, and other has wealth of $200,000. You could say that neighbor 2 has 40 times more wealth than neighbor 1, but they live pretty much the same lifestyle.

So if there is a billionaire in our midst, say in Provo Utah, and there are 30,000 students who live comfortable lives and have no wealth at all, you could say the one person has more wealth than the 30,000. That would be true from an assets minus liabilities standpoint. But the billionaire is not hoarding all the food, housing, clothing, etc. He had a good idea and made a bunch of wealth, without taking anything from the 30,000. His idea might have even benefited them.

If you don't want capitalism, you can scratch the billionaire out the equation, and you can diminish the living conditions of the 30,000, so all are poorer. More equitable?