4 ms·

I think the sticking point is that this method of acquiring money is only available to those who are already have more money than any one person could ever spen

I think the sticking point is that this method of acquiring money is only available to those who are already have more money than any one person could ever spend, and the money that is acquired often comes from those who do not have enough money to retire yet, via institutional investors that manage insurance, pensions, and retirement accounts. That is, people who could retire now and live without worry for the next thousand years or more are taking more money from people who are toiling away to try to retire by age 70, and making it more difficult to accomplish that goal.

jolmg 6y ago
Then what's being argued is that what's immoral is to have too much money. An issue with it is that there's no objective, definite point at which we can say that a person has made too much money. I think anyone could consider that those that are making more than themselves are making too much. How much more they're making compared to us determines the certainty with which we can say they're making too much.
- logfromblammo 6y ago
  I would absolutely argue that it's immoral to have more money than 500 times the median individual income. That means anyone with individual wealth (after liquidating everything to cash) of more than about $33M is a selfish, exploitative asshole. That's not illegal, of course, but I can still think ill of their avarice. 500 times median individual income allows you to pay your fiduciary manager 2.5x median while you earn 12.5x median for doing nothing at all, forever. That is without a doubt a permanent luxury lifestyle, firmly wedged in the upper class, with a dependent business that is infinitely sustainable with a single client. But it isn't so much that one couldn't spend it all on luxury consumer goods, with a bit of effort. It's enough for up to ten full-time personal servants, while eating filet and lobster every night. Six security guards, at two per 8-hr shift, one personal chef, one executive assistant, one driver, and one house-cleaner. Seems like plenty to me, but as a filthy prole, what do I know? Spending the money back into the economy is the saving grace of the wealthy. Letting the money go, so that it can be someone else's to spend for a little while, is why it is okay for the rich to have lots of money (but not "too much"). They keep the yacht builders and golf course architects in business. When someone has "too much" money, they can't spend it fast enough to avoid creating a wealth singularity. They mostly invest it and lend it, weakly throwing it out in a long elliptical orbit, but that money accumulates more money on its journey through apolucre and then collides back at perilucre. Only spending it can send it out beyond the event horizon, and permanently lessen the mass of the hoard, and possibly keep someone else's star from evaporating too small to sustain its energy reactions. A billionaire can pay their fiduciary management company $5M per year, taking $25M per year in investment income (adjusted for inflation, forever). They can fund a personal servant army/entourage of 350 people, with an average annual salary of $70k, still leaving $500k to spend on their own. The Queen of all the Commonwealth nations has about 1000 servants in the UK, distributed over several palace properties. You literally have to be a national institution to have that many employees.

jolmg 6y ago

Then what's being argued is that what's immoral is to have too much money. An issue with it is that there's no objective, definite point at which we can say that a person has made too much money. I think anyone could consider that those that are making more than themselves are making too much. How much more they're making compared to us determines the certainty with which we can say they're making too much.

logfromblammo 6y ago
I would absolutely argue that it's immoral to have more money than 500 times the median individual income. That means anyone with individual wealth (after liquidating everything to cash) of more than about $33M is a selfish, exploitative asshole. That's not illegal, of course, but I can still think ill of their avarice. 500 times median individual income allows you to pay your fiduciary manager 2.5x median while you earn 12.5x median for doing nothing at all, forever. That is without a doubt a permanent luxury lifestyle, firmly wedged in the upper class, with a dependent business that is infinitely sustainable with a single client. But it isn't so much that one couldn't spend it all on luxury consumer goods, with a bit of effort. It's enough for up to ten full-time personal servants, while eating filet and lobster every night. Six security guards, at two per 8-hr shift, one personal chef, one executive assistant, one driver, and one house-cleaner. Seems like plenty to me, but as a filthy prole, what do I know? Spending the money back into the economy is the saving grace of the wealthy. Letting the money go, so that it can be someone else's to spend for a little while, is why it is okay for the rich to have lots of money (but not "too much"). They keep the yacht builders and golf course architects in business. When someone has "too much" money, they can't spend it fast enough to avoid creating a wealth singularity. They mostly invest it and lend it, weakly throwing it out in a long elliptical orbit, but that money accumulates more money on its journey through apolucre and then collides back at perilucre. Only spending it can send it out beyond the event horizon, and permanently lessen the mass of the hoard, and possibly keep someone else's star from evaporating too small to sustain its energy reactions. A billionaire can pay their fiduciary management company $5M per year, taking $25M per year in investment income (adjusted for inflation, forever). They can fund a personal servant army/entourage of 350 people, with an average annual salary of $70k, still leaving $500k to spend on their own. The Queen of all the Commonwealth nations has about 1000 servants in the UK, distributed over several palace properties. You literally have to be a national institution to have that many employees.