Presumably this is satire, as these are clearly not equivalent statements.
We don't share limited horsepower, but we do share limited wealth, and it can be redistributed.
This anaology also implies there is an essentialism to people's financial situations. That rich and poor people are inherently different. In reality rich people have been allowed to be rich by current societal structures.
Looks like I have over-analyzed the meme. If you are a troll, you've got me.
Another minor point of contention: Lamborghini's are at best 4-5 times faster than a shitbox car. A single-billionaire earns 20 000 times more than the average person. The scales are all out of wack.
A closer comparison would be the difference between a private jet and a person walking. Even that would only be a 200x difference. A snail and private jet is much closer to that 20 000x difference.
It's so absurd a difference I'm scale that the comparison is hard for people to imagine.
A world where the difference between the average person and the richest people is only as large as a shitbox and a Lamborghini's speed would be actually be a pretty palatable society to live in.
A better comparison would be: "I'd perform better at the race if the winners weren't the ones who made up the rules."
Edit: And somehow, they always get out of time penalties.
I think a more accurate analogy would be "I'd be faster if Lamborghini didn't steal the majority of my power output."
Money is made up (especially when we think about company valuations and the ability to use stock as collateral) so I don't think it's accurate to say there is limited wealth. Wealth distribution isn't tackling the fundamental injustice of capitalism.