The way I think about it is this: If there is a limited supply of a good that is highly desired by the richest in society, and if price is used as an indicator

The way I think about it is this: If there is a limited supply of a good that is highly desired by the richest in society, and if price is used as an indicator of quality for that good, then it is the connection between the cost and the consumer that drives prices upwards. For things like speedboats and handcrafted watches and personal spaceships, this is all cool, and I don't think that randomly insanely rich people buying toys like this does much harm really on the scale of things and probably does a lot of good if anything. Power tends to follow a power law, no matter what kind of politics you try and squidge in the middle. However, if it is then thought to cause injury to the society in general for certain goods (such as education and health services, for example) to be priced above people's general means, then the state can lower the cost of that good by regulation or by direct competition by the state. The purchasing power and drug research of the UK's NHS being a good example. And I don't think there is any massive contradiction in being lassie-faire capitalist with most stuff and socialist with specific areas. It seems to be how places like Finland get along mostly, and they seem to be doing ok. [edit] Just thought, private spaceships shouldn't be on that list as they follow a different set of economics, as the rich people who want them are directly funding their construction rather than purchasing a consumer good. Posh watches and big speedboats follow this rule though.