It's not so simple. Wealth can be used to gain access to limited resources such as land. Greater wealth inequality means a small segment of the population can afford to buy up all of the housing, driving up prices and blocking others (who may not otherwise be any worse off than they ever were) from owning land. They can then perpetually rent out this land, creating an effortless income for themselves and siphoning value from everyone else.

To be pedantic, is not the "skittles" part that is the problem but ratherthe "bag" part of the analogy, since it implies a fixed amount. If the OP somehow weaved a skittles factory into the analogy, the analogy could be spared.

That's not true at all.

For one, you're talking about a digit currency derived from a (currently) finite resource: electricity. While you suck up electricity mining BTC, you add to the demand for said electricity. Higher demand means higher prices, meaning those with money can afford more electricity and mine more BTC, while those who can't afford more electricity to mine cannot. Additionally, those who could afford just enough power for non-BTC mining now struggle to afford power at all; and even if they do, they now must save less, growing the gap.

I didn't say the word "steal"; that's something you derived from my analogy because my analogy is obvious. Resources, and wealth, are all finite; so more for one literally means less or none for another if that one takes as much as they please. Otherwise, I could walk into any bank in the world and just take out as much money as I wanted to.

I was once told that if I were in the middle of a discussion with my wife and she completely refocused the discussion onto something else, I should be happy internally that I was right, but externally I should take the loss.

You're talking about BTC now, so I guess I'll take that L.