Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with your theory is that somebody would have to buy the shares from him. At scale that's zero sum, and the money can't come from people who don't have any. Think about it this way. Alphabet owns Google. When that happened, did it create an additional company out of whole cloth with the value of Google, on top of the value of Alphabet? No. That's double counting. The value only exists once. Moreover, unles…
Your alphabet / google analogy has zero connection to what we are talking. There doesn’t need to be anyone with the cash available to pay the entire price of Amazon. If Jeff Bezos wants to purchase something, he can trade Amazon stock for it. The corporation doesn’t have any control over whether he does that or not. It is exactly equivalent to money.
By this logic Google has an infinite amount of money because it has the ability to issue new shares. It can create a zillion dollars of new shares and sell them in the market and now it has a zillion dollars higher market cap because it has an extra zillion dollars in cash.
But it's not actually infinite, for two reasons. First, the money (or whatever you're exchanging the shares for) still has to come from somewhere. There isn't unlimited demand. It's not possible for every billionaire to sell their shares at once because then there would be nobody to sell them to. If they all tried to at once, the share prices would crash into the floor.
More importantly, if Bezos sells some shares in Amazon, it doesn't cause Amazon to have less capital. The company is still the same size. All you've changed is who owns it -- and unless the price he sells it for is dramatically lower than its current market value, it has to be some other rich people because nobody else has the money to buy it from him. The only way for a rich person to reduce their holdings in a corporation in order to spend the money is for some other rich person to reduce their spending by the same amount and use the money to buy the shares in their place -- and then the corporation is in control of that person's wealth, in the same amount as the original shareholder's.
The things that cause corporate officers to control less wealth are things like corporate spinoffs, taking existing public companies private (which then puts actual control into the hands of the owner), competitors eroding the incumbent's market share, corporate bankruptcies, etc. Two rich guys trading shares for real estate doesn't do that. At the end the corporation still has the same amount of wealth and the two rich guys have the same amount of wealth, you've just changed which one has their wealth in stock vs. land.