this is a very low bar for determining a decent quality of life for a human being.
> ideological places or jealousy
but presumably you are a "temporarily embarrassed billionaire"?
> billionaire is likely providing over 1,000,000 direct and indirect jobs
No, they don't 'provide jobs', they suck up [human] resources that could otherwise have gone to schools and hospitals.
> Undoubtedly Amazon has lowered the prices of goods.
but at what cost to the social fabric (Walmart is probably the greater transgressor there though).
Developed societies tolerate the ultra-wealthy because a) they are an artifact of a free market for capital allocation (vs state control), and b) sometimes having large wealth concentrations has proved a useful 'short-circuit' to normal capital allocation for otherwise unfundable but ultimately beneficial projects.
The key word here is 'tolerate'. If society feels the ultra-wealthy are no longer worth the problems they cause (e.g. hoarding certain finite resources), then society should get rid of them.
I would add that beyond a certain point (a place to live, personal possessions, retirement fund, etc), there is no moral case - in the sense of the natural right of ownership - for their wealth, and we can simply confiscate it. For example in the UK we used 'death duties' to break the aristocracy.
this is a very low bar for determining a decent quality of life for a human being.
> ideological places or jealousy
but presumably you are a "temporarily embarrassed billionaire"?
> billionaire is likely providing over 1,000,000 direct and indirect jobs
No, they don't 'provide jobs', they suck up [human] resources that could otherwise have gone to schools and hospitals.
> Undoubtedly Amazon has lowered the prices of goods.
but at what cost to the social fabric (Walmart is probably the greater transgressor there though).
Developed societies tolerate the ultra-wealthy because a) they are an artifact of a free market for capital allocation (vs state control), and b) sometimes having large wealth concentrations has proved a useful 'short-circuit' to normal capital allocation for otherwise unfundable but ultimately beneficial projects.
The key word here is 'tolerate'. If society feels the ultra-wealthy are no longer worth the problems they cause (e.g. hoarding certain finite resources), then society should get rid of them.
I would add that beyond a certain point (a place to live, personal possessions, retirement fund, etc), there is no moral case - in the sense of the natural right of ownership - for their wealth, and we can simply confiscate it. For example in the UK we used 'death duties' to break the aristocracy.