Wait, the popular author J K Rowling was in the list of wealthy people whose financial actions you've said are a problem. J K Rowling wrote some books that lot

Wait, the popular author J K Rowling was in the list of wealthy people whose financial actions you've said are a problem. J K Rowling wrote some books that lots of people liked and accepted a modest payment for each copy, making her wealthy. To check, are you saying it's not good enough even if she decides to give away the money now, because she should never have had that much financial power in the first place, to decide what to do with so much? If so, what should she have done instead? I think a wildly successful published author can only avoid getting rich by giving away their royalties. Declining to take royalties in the first place is just another form of giving them away, and that decision exercises equivalent financial power to taking them and giving them to someone else. Same with making the books freely available, free to copy: that's exercising the power to give away the wealth to readers who would have paid, instead of someone else. So taking less money in the first place is not a way out of your ethical constraint. It's just another form of being rich and giving it away, but with a faster cycle. In some sense it's not her fault she acquired financial power, except in the sense that she chose to make something lots of people loved enough to be willing to pay for, which is hardly something to criticise. The power simply exists by virtue of large numbers of people being willing to pay without coercion. If there's no way for a person to avoid having financial power as a result of some welcome action they did, not even by choosing to give every penny of their wealth away while earning it, I don't think it's fair or ethical to blame them for having that unavoidable power, nor sensible to deem them a psychopath. If you're going to judge the person, better to judge how they exercise the power they have, not that they have it.