>You're confusing resources they have control over with resources for their own personal utilization I don't know if they're as different as you portray in pra

>You're confusing resources they have control over with resources for their own personal utilization I don't know if they're as different as you portray in practice. I agree with the notion in theory, which is why I distinctly used "wealth" in my original comment and not "income". >He's been entrusted to make decisions about how to spend our economy's resources in part because he's made good decisions in the past. Sure, no one is saying don't aspire to a meritocracy when considering control of the state's purse strings. The key to your example and your "accumulation of wealth by itself isn't necessarily bad" notion is the reason I didn't say "no organization" should have more than 999m. I was strictly referring to excess personal accumulation of capital. Which harms us all. Like I said, no one's quality of life is going to get worse if personal wealth were capped at 999m, but I can think of infinite ways to make a lot of people's quality of life better with the money we'd have in such an organization of the economy. >and it's bad when it can continue to be accumulated by doing nothing I don't even know if I agree with this. A state fund that earns interest and spends that interest makes sense. I think the key is the first case you note where it's bad.