> I don’t think it’s immoral or particularly hazardous to democracy for individuals to amass a large amount of wealth in their life time. "Large" is hard to re

> I don’t think it’s immoral or particularly hazardous to democracy for individuals to amass a large amount of wealth in their life time. "Large" is hard to represent when it's multiple orders of magnitude more than the righest we can relate to. $27b in rolls of quarters put end-to-end is enough to go around the entire earth. I think an Elephant is "large" compared to a human. The size of any continent is already a lot more than "large" compared to a person. Here, "large" is more like comparing the diameter of Jupiter to your own height (80 million times the average person). That adjective doesn't quite do it justice.