The super-rich are bound up with fantasies of grandiosity. This is why particular attention must be paid to the dreams of the super-rich — dreams of longevity and even immortality.

Überreichtum or when translated to English as, “Overwealth”/“Excess-wealth”  refers to a concentration of wealth so extreme that it ultimately makes democracy impossible. Overwealth damages human dignity, social coexistence, and the environment.

Sometimes the term is trivialized by asking where exactly does the “excess” begin: Is a private fortune of USD 1 billion already too much, or does that only apply above USD 500 billion, as Elon Musk now claims to possess? But this question does not point to arbitrariness in value judgments — rather, it points to the democratic necessity of discussing upper limits on private wealth. Logic demands that there must be some boundary for private accumulation. Only those who are deeply invested in defending wealth, and who consistently avoid any criticism of extreme concentration, will concede that a handful of people should have as much as the rest of humanity combined.

Characteristics of excess wealth

The essential feature of overwealth is an open horizon — no ceiling on how much private wealth one can acquire. It is never enough; there is always more to be gained. Media outlets are already hyperventilating about a possible one-trillion-dollar threshold. But this will not mark an end to accumulation. Limitlessness is built into the process itself.

The super-rich possess three instruments that the rest of us do not.

• First, they shape visions of the future. Through technological prophecies, they cast themselves as oracular figures.
• Second, as owners of major media outlets and digital platforms, they shape public opinion — precisely where society would need critical, plural debate.
• Third, they command astonishing financial means with which they can enforce their interests.

Given their vast material resources, which can buy almost anything, death appears to the richest as an incomprehensible, irritating interruption. The Marxist psychoanalyst Erich Fromm wrote (in To have or to Be?): “Perhaps more than anything else, possession of property constitutes the fulfillment of the craving for immortality, and it is for this reason that having this orientation has such strength. If my self is constituted by what I have, then I am immortal if the things I have are indestructible.”

Property and the fear of death

Today, too, people attempt to transcend death through private property — through gifts, inheritance, and estate transfers. These transfers to family members are often entangled with ambivalent feelings, which is why any questioning of private ownership is so emotionally charged. Things meant to express personal bonds cannot, by their nature, capture the fragility and ambivalence of those relationships.

Many give or plan inheritances tied to expectations of how heirs should behave. When these expectations are unmet, disappointment runs deep. Most at least wish to see gratitude and joy. Yet sometimes the beloved family home becomes nothing but a burden for the next generation. The deepest wounds often occur in bequests and passive inheritance: Who should receive what, and what will this do to the others?

Children are expected to continue the business or farm, remain in the family house even when their lives are elsewhere, manage the financial wealth as instructed, and pass these aims — cloaked as values — on to their own children (in the economic literature this is inadequately addressed through a typology of inheritance motives). Yet none of this dispels fear. The deceased will have no power to enforce their wishes. It becomes nothing more than the “power of the dead hand” — little comfort for the living. 

The futility of things

Pope Francis expressed it succinctly: “No matter how many goods a person gathers in this world, we can be absolutely certain of one thing: They will not be with us in the coffin.”

The ancient Pharaohs were an exception — their grave goods were immense, stolen from the living and hidden from grave robbers. Reflections on the futility of greed-driven accumulation are easy to find. What is rarer are genuine shifts toward solidarity that flow from those reflections.

The meaning of wealth for the super-rich

Thomas Piketty notes in Capital and Ideology an idea he does not fully pursue: “The sacralization of property is, fundamentally, a natural reaction to the fear of the void.”

The void — understood as an unresolved sense of meaning or as death anxiety — is reshaped through the death-transcending properties of ownership. Wealth appears enduring and promises meaning. Only the terror of death makes the clinging to property and the fear of loss fully intelligible.

Anyone who politically challenges private property heightens owners’ terror of death, because they undermine the fantasy that life simply continues. Debates on wealth taxation are therefore not merely about material interests — they are about values and fantasies.

Inheritance hides an unspoken question: What is the meaning of life? For many, that question appears like a luxury, because mere survival leaves no space for abstraction. In capitalism, meaning is answered through the necessity of self-preservation — and, for those with more, through the pursuit of wealth, accumulation, and power. And among those with little, the dream of homeownership persists each generation anew.

The place of property in society

Private property — dominion over things — is in fact a legal relation between people. It is not only a relation to objects, but a relation among persons. Freedom through private property, by definition, neglects the freedom of non-owners. Non-owners are promised possible future freedom if they save long enough to own property themselves. Proponents of an ownership society aim to sacralize property — to make it untouchable. Not everyone can own a house with a garden, because land is finite, but this does not weaken the promises attached to property.

Conservatives stress that freedom means the removal of state constraint, and therefore private property is central. But people’s lived freedom is also constrained by exploitative employers and empathy-starved fellow human beings. For all of us, freedom is limited by illness, aging, and death. The decisive question remains:

“You live only for a short while — who are you, and what do you really want?”

Excess wealth and human lifespan

What do we want to do with our brief time on earth? Instead of confronting this question, we chase acquisition and bequeathal. This meaning-making only works if fear of death is intense. Alongside fear of the void comes fear of loss — and even wealth erodes over time.

For the super-rich, another problem arises: an excess of wealth creates disorientation. Satisfaction — ‘now it is enough’ — never arrives. If death is the terror of emptiness and wealth symbolises fullness, then “overwealth” is the appropriate term. Paradoxically, overwealth also contains emptiness — and that emptiness is terrifying.

Philanthropy is a form of modern indulgence trading. Often, it is secretly linked to an ancient desire for immortality. As the historian Peter Brown wrote in Treasure in Heaven, small benefactions were meant to open the gates of heaven — a pact between the wealthy and the clergy in the 4th century.

Existential questions and escape routes

There are many ways to evade existential questions: living on through children, through art, through things. Philanthropy seeks posthumous glory. But the technological immortality engineers in the service of tech billionaires pose a new question: Can finitude be abolished?

In transhumanism, the distant future dissolves guilt. In its cosmic arithmetic and Mars fantasies, present suffering becomes negligible. The richest want more wealth and more time. They seek capital and longevity. They want no limits — neither on wealth nor lifespan. Yet they accept limits all too easily for others: the poor should remain where they are; those from disadvantaged origins should adapt. For some, wealth is simply God’s favour.

The limit of finitude

The world of the super-rich is one in which inequality is not interrogated rationally. The gulf between rich and poor is justified with myths and narratives. Were the gulf truly questioned, it could not be sustained.

Death is the great fear-inducing equalizer in an unequal world. It imposes a boundary even on those who seem to live without boundaries. For them, this must feel like a profound narcissistic injury. Hence, the longevity industries and fantasies of abolishing death are booming. 

What to do about the  Überreichtum?

Excess wealth allows a tiny few to shape our future. The richest hold interpretive power in capitalism. Now they also want to claim final authority over death. And because of their power, their immortal fantasies matter for the rest of us. They formulate technological utopias of cold transcendence on behalf of all.

Driven by narcissistic greed for ever more, they seek to bar humanity from a shared, finite, and solidaristic life.

___________________________________________

Editorial Note:

This article is produced in collaboration as part of a collaboration between Rethinking Economics International, Makronom and the Economists for Future DE and was originally written in German language. The 2026 contributions engage with ongoing debates on anti-authoritarian and anti-fascist perspectives on economic policy, with particular attention to how social security arrangements can help counter authoritarian and nationalist tendencies. Contributions in this series also explore welfare state design, property relations, pension systems, and institutional reforms with a view to strengthening democratic cohesion, ecological stability, and economic resilience. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the participating platforms.

About the author:

Martin Schürz is an economist and an Adlerian Individual Psychologist; He was earlier the Head of the Monetary Unit at the Economic Analysis Division at the Oesterreichische National Bank and has also led the Household Finance and Consumption Survey (HFCS) of the Eurosystem in Austria. He has been researching wealth distribution in Europe for more than two decades and currently works as a psychotherapist at an outpatient clinic. His book Überreichtum (Overwealth) was awarded the 2019 Bruno Kreisky Prize for Political Books. He is also a Visiting Fellow at IWM.

____________________________________________

‍