> Lastly... one viewpoint presented in the article is that it's somehow immoral for the CEOs to worry about self-preservation instead of trying to give back to

> Lastly... one viewpoint presented in the article is that it's somehow immoral for the CEOs to worry about self-preservation instead of trying to give back to the community. The thing that I don't like with this reasoning is that it implies there is a limit of wealth and that above that line, the benefit of regular economy stop applying and the rich person, on a voluntary basis should just have the decency to invest back directly into the community instead of through the regular means. I somewhat agree with that on principle, but if people really share that thinking then it should really become a law: punitive tax level, maximum salary, don't know of any practical mechanism, but that's not the point, it is not even discussed by any party. Otherwise there is no reason you can criticise the rich for buying the stuff he wants than the poor (relatively) for doing exactly the same.