You're making a false assumption that all of his money will be liquid.

Rich people diversify their wealth into both liquid and non-liquid assets.

The economy is faltering because money is circulating into the wrong areas. You're arguing in favor of the "Trickle Down" effect.

Money is like blood. It needs to circulate into the right places at the right speed. When a lot of money is given to a very small amount of people, it doesn't circulate well. They use it to buy expensive luxury items, and none of that helps regular people.

Rich people are the blood cots of society. They hire people to come up with BS philosophies and BS economic systems to rationalize their existence.

People like you say, "Don't punish our job creators."

Well, in that case, don't punish the guy who throws a brick through a window, because obviously his behavior has employed someone. Someone now has the job of replacing that window.

Don't punish the criminals because they employ the police. Don't punish arsonists because they employ firefighters.

Schmidt is just another clot.

If a window was broken, then the effort put in to making that window has been wasted. Also, it would cause distress to someone in the short term and I don't see how anyone could earn the right to break a window unless it was their property. Therefore that is a ridiculous analogy. You think all academics studying economics that have helped formulate the theories on supply and demand are simply doing so to please the wealthy? How could the resources used to create a luxury car be used elsewhere to help "regular people"? Do you think Google would just pay the guy this money without adequately valuing his contribution first? They have shareholders to please. You believe then that the amount paid to anyone should be clamped to some maximum amount? Describe to me then a system that would have money circulate into the "right" areas? What incentives would there be for people to even better themselves or to work for promotion if there is no reward?