No, there isn't. Unrealized wealth is infinite, it is a measure of people's desires, and since people's desires are not finite, wealth is not finite.
Unrealized wealth is an estimation of what that wealth would be worth if it were realized, if it were sold for money. Something cannot be worth a quadrillion dollars even if everyone really, really desires it, because that amount of wealth does not exist. In order for something to have unrealized value, someone hypothetically needs to be able to buy it.
It doesn't matter how much you want something, it matters what you would be capable of spending on it.
People's desires are finite because money is finite, the amount of realized wealth that could hypothetically exist is finite, and some people's desires are vastly, vastly more finite than others.
I see your logic, I'm not going to say this is illogical, but I don't think it's grounded in real observation. Like, some people are born into wealth, and the overwhelming majority of them have blown their wealth within a few generations.
Again, this is a question of what you consider to be wealth.
If your conception of wealth is measured in a few million dollars, then yes. It's absolutely possible to lose that over a few generations. However, it is still a lot harder than you might think. It is far, far easier for the children of (relatively) wealthy parents to get themselves into a position where they can remain at that level of wealth indefinitely. That's how you end up with an established class system.
However, compared to the richest people in society, someone with a million dollars doesn't even register on the scale. The richest people in society are hundreds of thousands of times richer than that, and that wealth will accumulate pretty much no matter what they do. Donald Trump, who is far from the richest person in the world, is a bad businessman who has failed at almost everything he has attempted, but it doesn't matter. He doesn't have or need a real job, he has an expensive hobby where he pretends to be a businessman.
Also, bear in mind that I'm intentionally focusing on the concentration of wealth in the hands of individuals because that's easier to relate to our own lives, but that's not even how it works any more. The fact that Disney owns a growing proportion of the world's media isn't divorced from the mechanisms of capitalism. One day Jeff Bezos will die and leave behind a festering dynasty who, over many generations, may eventually squander his wealth, but Amazon will keep going until it is eaten by something even bigger and more exploitative, and the people behind those ever-larger corporations will continue to become richer and richer relative to everyone else as the corporations they control gain more and more of a monopoly over all economic activity and human life.
Is the inverse not true? Setting aside democracy for a moment and considering just the idea of state power vs economic power, is it not equally true that power concentrated in the state works to dominate and subvert the economy?
Where exactly is state power concentrated?
Is it concentrated in the head of state? The head of state who is elected by popular vote? Is it concentrated in the legislature.. who are also elected by popular vote.
This is actually a really good example of how the ideology of capitalism is so destructive to democracy. In a democracy, there is not supposed to be any concentration of power. Everyone has a vote. Everyone gets to participate in the democratic system, which is where the legitimacy of that system is derived. Even within the mechanisms of government itself, power is always constrained by limitations and rules. There is an agreed upon procedure to the way power is exercised, because state power must always be accountable to the democratic process and, ultimately, to the people themselves.
The democractic state is supposed to rule, and indeed exist, by popular consent. Why have you begun to think otherwise?
The farmer gets credit for that, but so does the person who made his tractor, the person who drove the truck to transport it, the person who built that truck, the people maintaining the roads, the person who orchestrated the purchase of the food for their restaurant, the people who constructed that restaurant, the cook in the kitchen, the plumber and electrician that made the kitchen work, the waiter who took the order, the person who printed the menu from which to order... there just aren't that many jobs that can't be tied to food, medicine, clothing, or housing, and without which would leave people hungry, sick, naked, or out in the cold.
People are still hungry, sick, unable to afford clothes and/or out in the cold. It's not because people just aren't working hard enough to provide for them, it's because they don't have enough money. You seem to believe we live in a communist society where the purpose of labor is to improve collective human well-being, but that's not the case. The vast majority of people work because they need to work in order to not be hungry or cold. The jobs they work exist to enrich the companies who employ them. None of it has anything to do some compassionate mission to make sure everyone has what they need, it has to do with finding ways to take money from people.
The point I was making is that we live in a society which can afford
to have people working in restaurants and doing other jobs that are ultimately superfluous and didn't exist in historical societies where resources were actually scarce. Again, we are not locked in some species-wide struggle for survival. We live in a world that can afford to waste its population on trivial shit like letting you order food on your phone. The idea that forcing as much work as possible out of people is necessary for human survival is ludicrous, especially when the people who actually lived in eras where resource shortages were a constant existential threat actually worked much less.