The rise of the super rich is vast distortion of society, but not dealt with in economic theory (I hope for some push back on that assertion). Having citizens with such wealth is clearly a malfunctioning of society. How can economics fail to anticipate and criticize such outcomes?
Ricardo divided us caste like into labor, land and capital, with no discussion of how people moved from one to the other. Each became a self contained organism with well defined flows among them.
An alterative theory would start with human nature and the earth and how to put them together. Economics, with a focus on capital as control point, ends up with a theory of society that only includes those who contribute to capital wealth as owners, employees and consumers.
Obviously the vast rich, the billionaires, could not have done it themselves. They needed educated customers and workers. The disproportionate payout to a few of what is obviously a social achievement is destructive for a free society (people can be themselves, not the freedom of capital alone). It is interesting how free from political speech and actions the super rich seems to be, but it is a disguise, because they have their lawyers to work the system to their own advantage.
Not only is the current regime a concentrator of monopoly wealth, but also gives rise to tremendous mount of corruption. People at work are frequently confronted with the pressure to go along with cheating, lying, environmental destruction. This is also destructive of their character. Seems to me there is room for an economics that deals with the whole, bot just the capitalist part, that gets at the texture of real lives, not just the flow of dollars between key variables