That’s an interesting question. Maybe the money was only on paper to begin with. There’s a lot of extra currency that doesn’t really exist due to bank leverage. But you’re right, a lot of the money did go somewhere, it didn’t all evaporate. The people who came out ahead where the ones who sold right before the bubble burst.
I’m no economist, and can’t prove it, of course, but I think most of the “disappeared wealth” was “notional” in the first place. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t real, but like money itself, wealth in nearly any form is “wealth” only insofar as others value it and are willing to trade other forms of “wealth” (or service) for it at a relatively predictable level.
So, most of the lost wealth wasn’t burned in a big pyre on Wall Street. It wasn’t scooped up by the “capitalists” and stuffed into their pockets or suitcases. Most of it was in the form of generally acknowledged value of real estate and securities based on it. If your house is worth $100,000, and is for some time, and if, knowing it, you realize you have something you can “cash out” and trade for some other asset, you have “wealth” to the tune of $100,000. But if your home value declines to $50,000, you have “lost” $50,000. If your mortgage is $50,000, you have no wealth at all anymore whereas previously you had “wealth” to the tune of $50,000.
Now, if you’re a bank or an insurance company or a person with a 401k or whatever, and buy bonds that are based on that $50,000 mortgage, you have “wealth” to the tune of $50,000. If the houses underlying the bond decline to a representative level of, say $30,000, you have “lost” $20,000.
Yes, some of those who sold their houses high and didn’t purchase another overvalued home, did put cash into their pockets. But my guess is that those who actually ended up profiting in that sense were far outweighed by those who lost “notional” wealth. Otherwise, those who say the nation lost $16 trillion in wealth, couldn’t say it. In the aggregate, they would have to say nothing was lost.