I don't know. On one hand, speaking for the US, far too many struggle because their cost and risk exposure far exceeds their income. For too many, it exceeds

I don't know. On one hand, speaking for the US, far too many struggle because their cost and risk exposure far exceeds their income. For too many, it exceeds their income potential. Billionaires are a product of that. Too much went away from labor. That trends immoral. And it is currently legal. Corruption itself is basically legal. Maybe it should not be, or... better: Say the US was a more robust social democracy. The vast majority of people have income appropriate to their cost and risk exposure, do not struggle, live modest, reasonable, fulfilling lives. Would this question come up outside smallish circles, rather than the more general discussion happening today? I know I would not care. I care very much in the current scenario. Too many are in real trouble, struggling, working more than is necessary. I have arrived here: Do the people right. Beyond that, make as much as you can. It is harder to make billions in that scenario, but the net happiness in the world is far greater. Say someone makes a few billion, or even just one and change. What is the meaningful difference in happiness between that and tens or hundreds of billions? Agency is about all I can think of, and really that is a different question: Should individuals command nation sized resources? I would argue no.