> What exactly do you intend to do with infinite wealth? What kind of life do you lead that isn't satisfied by what would be otherwise normal constraints? I'm asking seriously
You allocate it to productive means, you don't consume it.
You allocate it to productive means, you don't consume it.
Many people spend a portion of their wealth in elections. Even middle class voters.
According to the data I could find, on average the middle class donate <$100. At least 55% donate <$100, with most being small donations.
Let's be generous and use $100. That means one person exerted the equivalent pressure of 5 million people.
What the fuck are you on about at this point. What is this stupid technically correct "but many people spend on elections" nonsense? Are you being purposefully obtuse?
Yes, I am.
It is a policy failure to allow ANYONE to spend money to influence / support elected officials. Your only influence should be voting.
It feels odd that you would point out the little guy when there is kind of this elephant in the room.
You could have just said we need to get money out of politics.
It’s funny because a decade ago nobody cared that the Silicon Valley and Hollywood rich sets consistently poured money into the Democratic Party.
Then when they took the party far to the left in the 2016-2020 era, and Silicon Valley noped out and started supporting the GOP just to block them, then suddenly it became a big problem where their donations were going.
Do you see billionaires doing that right now? Are they the most efficient resource allocators? Is the $250 million that Elon is spending to influence the election the best use of that $250 million that he could've achieved?
I would like some more serious answers from you, otherwise don't bother allocating your effort to responding. I'm sure you, as an excellent allocator, will come to the same conclusion.
The person, our group of people, who have built the specific heap of wealth (e.g. a company) are the best stewards in my opinion. It does not mean that they WILL increase the wealth even more, they might run it into the ground, but they are the only ones who have the moral right and probably the experience.
Then consumption isn't the dispute, and the yachts are a distraction. So the question is what unbounded accumulation buys that bounded accumulation can't. Not welfare, since you've just said it's all reinvested.
What's left is control: over which projects get capital, which technologies get built, which politicians get funded. $250M toward an election is the same capital, doing the same "allocation." Is concentrated control over allocation a good we should maximize? And is "they built this heap" a sufficient moral title to it, including when the heap was inherited rather than built (which is the majority of the time)?
Without that you will always run into these sort of issues. The problem isn't wealth inequality, the problem is that wealth buys political power.
The zillionaires buy thinktanks to push their agenda by claiming this nonsense. Infinite wealth = erosion of democracy when few people try to change the world to their liking.
Who do you think got that $100m spend? Didn't it go to all the service providers? The caterers, the people who worked the function, hotels, food distributors, the musicians, the travel agencies, cab drivers, coffee shops, etc.?
Or do you think it was just thrown into the water?
Heck, I know middle class people who spend $50k on a wedding and I think that's obscene, but their right.
Monies from infinite wealth can not be spent on services in totality. It is mostly accumulated slowing down the velocity of money. In fact there don't use their own money to grow their business. The wedding was expensive because it was for a VIP and they charged more. All those guests would have eaten dinner if they didn't eat the food in the wedding.