> If they stop believing money has value (so they wouldn't want to come to my house), men with guns will come to their house

You’re assuming there’s going to be large groups of people that believe money still has value. However, there’s nothing inherently different about the first group of people with guns and the second group of people with guns.

If hypothetically there’s a large moon heading to earth so everyone is going to die, everyone is responding to the same situation.

Less extreme situations result in societal collapse, and that’s just one of many options.

I believe the parent was referring to the power to do something with the money. (Not in what one owes). In a decent society there are things no amount of money can buy, and things that take inordinate amounts that would only corrupt a sick fraction of the populace. That is part of what is gross about Epstein's scale, it made many of us realize that there is a price on those specific things and it wasn't just a sociopathic microslice of society, but seemingly "all" (lots, most, too many -- choose your term) of the people in power.

Additionally Lobbying shows us the amount of money for corruption is surprisingly low.

Any of the above, the world could just decide arbitrarily everyone with 1+B is suddenly broke. That’s not likely but it doesn’t break the laws of physics or anything.