Okay. It depends on whether their caloric load is proportional to their wealth. If so, yes, it’s very cost effective.

There are about 30,000, the one percent of the one percent. And they control roughly 26% of, well, of everything. The ninety-nine percent of the whole (we’ll get back to the 99% of the one percent in a minute) hold nearly 60% of the wealth. It’s not very evenly distributed, but that’s another discussion. There are 330,000,000 or so 99-percenters. A little arithmetic lets us know that our average 1-of-1 has nearly 5000 times the share of the average 99er.

Let’s take 150 pounds for an average weight (a figure that lets us skip over differences by gender or age). Remember that many of these people are lean: they acquire exponentially more than they consume.

The super-rich, 5000 times richer, should yield, each one of them, the equivalent of 5000 (richness) x 4 (servings per pound) x 150 (pounds per plutocrat). That’s about 3,000,000 servings, a fantastic outcome. It’s ninety billion, for the whole cohort, 300 per person for everyone in the country. That’s a year’s worth of protein for every living American (except the 30,000, of course).

As a one-time bounty, that’s terrific. But the greatest part is the rollover. The next percent of the one-percent will slide right into place as the top 1-of-1. Probably we’ll need a full year for the enrichment to take hold, but once underway, we have a self-sustaining momentum, an inexhaustible source of shared wealth.

I realize there are moral and nutritional considerations. I’m just assessing feasibility. One important point to close. This route avoids the sort of class-warfare we’d have if we confiscated the wealth itself. We leave the awesome wealth creation machine of capitalism running full out. The markets will soar.