🇳🇱
Just a reminder, wealth is **not** a zero sum game. If it were we would still be living in caves.
@freemo No, but wealth is a marker of exploitation. A certain degree of wealth can be legitimately earned, but above that point, the wealth is grossly disproportionate to the value created for the economy and can only be obtained through some degree of systemic exploitation of the labor of others. Stock trading is the classic example of this.
So, in that sense, the sign in the OP is accurate.
@LouisIngenthron Nah, that sounds just as incorrect to me. Having a lot of wealth just means you you may have longer-term do-gooder plans as well (just as you may have long-term evil plans). For example if you spend a lot of your money starting charities, you might recognize you do more good with their money than most. But if you spend all your money in one go doing charities then that is all the good you will do.. However if you invest some of your money in doing good, and the rest in generating more wealth, then long term you can do much more good.
So no, having wealth, even in the billions, is never an indication or red flag at all.. It means nothing on its own, you have to look at the persons overall choices.
@freemo Except, again, if you have the wealth, it means it's not being donated to charities. It's still yours.
Charity would, therefore, be a limiting factor to wealth. Good people would donate enough of the excess to avoid being over that evil-wealthy line.
Moreover, charities are free to invest the money too. Why would a wealthy person hanging on to it for themselves to invest be better than giving it to the charity to choose to do with how they think best (including investing)?
