As the guy who started the argument about essentially confiscatory taxes above a certain amount to prevent multi-generational unearned riches (an idea that I advocate, unlike persons who prefer to be subjects rather than free men) I have to say I completely disagree with you. When a billionaire buys a $100,000 watch, that money's not just wasted -- it goes to all the people who have the jobs that produced the watch -- the watch-making company, the watch-makers themselves, the machinists, all the way down to the company janitors. The purchase may be in some sense meaningless to the billionaire, but it's not to the people who made the watch. I read somewhere that Johnny Depp and a bunch of friends were in a high-end restaurant in England, and Depp ordered and paid for a $24,000 bottle of wine. The money went to the restaurant, the servers, the winery,etc. So good on Johnny. He earned the money, let him spend it. It's much better spent, that it is stuck in a hedge fund somewhere, where the fund buys companies, strips them of all value, then shuts them down and kills the jobs. (I'm looking at you, Mitt Romney.)
I have to say, John, that you have completely missed my point about efficient use of resources. I'm surprised, but never mind. I understand that not everyone is as smart as me.
The fundamental basis of all wealth and prosperity is energy, in combination with the innovative and efficient uses of that energy.
The forms of energy I'm referring to are coal, oil, gas, solar, windmill, hydro, and most importantly, food, and so on.
The distribution of that energy is expressed in terms of money. For example, lets compare a car factory in America with a car factory in China. Let's assume that the sophistication of the production technology is the same, and let's assume that the energy costs, such as electricity to operate the mechanization and robots, are the same.
Let's inquire why the Chinese cars could be cheaper. They are cheaper because China has produced cars using
less energy, that is, in a more efficient way. How have they used less energy? Answer,
by apportioning less energy to the human workers in the car factory. They pay them lower wages. Money directly equates to energy.
The higher paid American worker uses more energy. If he's sensible, he uses that energy efficiently. He drives to work in a basic and practical car. The Chinese worker, equally sensible, might not be able to afford a car. He cycles to work on his bicycle. He uses less energy. The energy he uses is equivalent to a small amount of food.
People who manufacture $100,000 watches get paid wages, of course. If they are sensible, they'll use those wages in a productive manner, to buy a house, clothes, car, food, and support their children. However, the point you have missed is the lack of any productive nature and usefulness of the final product, the expensive watch.
The Roman soldier who spends his days picking up pebbles from the beach, then placing them back again, also gets paid a useful wage that helps him to support his family, if he has one. But don't you see, if the Roman soldiers were instructed to help the villagers to build dam walls and improve their infrastructure, that would be a more efficient and productive use of their time?
People who spend huge sums of money (energy) on useless products, such as fancy watches, are plain idiots.
All the problems we have in the world, are due to too many idiots and nutcases having too much influence. Sorry to be so blunt, but those are the facts, in my very humble opinion, of course.
