> Billionaire wealth grew an average of 57.1% under Democratic administrations compared to 16.5% under Republican administrations over the past 40 years. This counterintuitive pattern suggests many billionaire political donors prioritize immediate tax cuts over the stronger economic growth that historically occurs under Democratic policies.

I don't think we can assume that billionaire wealth would have grown even more with uninterrupted Democratic administrations. I suspect that tax cuts and deregulation during Republican administrations were essential for future growth of their wealth, with effects lasting many years afterward. (The Democratic administrations never fully undid, if they undid at all, the tax cuts and deregulation that occurred in previous Republican administrations.) Also, I think if Democrats were holding onto power comfortably, there would be more calls for and less resistance to anti-billionaire economic policies coming from the left wing.

I'd be interested to see the chart of billionaire wealth growth compared to median income growth. Billionaires claim that it's not a zero-sum game, but if you look at the % of campaign contributions by the most wealthy, that's hard to believe. Relative wealth matters a lot. If the overall economy is growing, that ultimately gives more power to labor, who can more easily change jobs and demand higher wages, so there may be an occasional, intentional reset—an economic downturn, layoffs, etc.—just to put labor in its place and ensure continued billionaire dominance over the masses.