Alex: you're partially right. What I'm talking about is a situation in which basic material goods are free, but "intellectual property" is the only sort that matters. That and personal human service.
So ya, if you want a very basic jacket, no problem. If you want a designer, "fashion" jacket, you pay a license fee for the design.
Here's the thing: you're thinking of the term "rich" from the viewpoint of a US citizen. Here, "rich" is about having more than other people, in a flamboyant, luxurious manner.
To the majority of the world's people, "rich" means not going hungry, not being cold due to lack of clothes or housing, not being sick due to unhygenic living conditions. "Rich" in Bangladesh means (among other things) that your kids don't need to work or beg to survive, so they can get basic schooling, enough to really progress once they're old enough to be self-driven to it.
That's what I meant by "making the whole world rich" in this context. To most of the world, pretty much everybody in the US is rich (or if they're not, they're damned disfunctional).
Will there still be people who are richER in such a cool high-tech future? Hell ya. Wouldn't have it any other way. But the "relatively poor" wouldn't be driven to desperate attack on the "super-wealthy", any more than suburban soccer moms (and dads) are driven to storm Bill Gates' house with pitchforks 😀. Instead, if they really wanted to hit that level, they'd study harder or go do something really smart.
Instead of throwing a crowbar into the social machine.
