Why do some people need so much money?

Scott Hall39 said:I went back and read your earlier post where you claim that the wealthy and politicians are basically one and the same. Honestly, things aren't that simple. There are way more players involved, though you're right about one thing: they’re constantly at each other's throats. You've got party against party, internal power struggles, industry versus industry, and endless competition within sectors. It’s a mess of partial interests all fighting for a seat at the table. You can't just boil everything down to a bunch of rich politicians. A politician has to play nice with the public during elections—back in Victoria's era, a 5% tax rate would have been considered insanely high, just look at how far we've come since then. The Church holds power. Voters hold power. Various ideologues hold power. The academic community holds significant power. Unions have power. And then there's the media. The media is an interesting example because even though they're mostly owned by massive corporations in most developed nations, plenty of research suggests a lean toward leftist ideas. Granted, it's still within the capitalist system—what Americans would call "liberal"—but looking at the big picture, it's a direct hit against the wealthy elite!

What you're talking about is clear to me, but honestly, it's fascinating how dynamic and multi-layered that entire system actually is...

You don't quite grasp the sense in which I used the term "class."

A class consists of a massive number of people...
Depending on the population being discussed, that could mean hundreds of thousands, millions, tens, or even hundreds of millions...

Of course, a million people isn't a perfectly homogeneous group sharing the same last name and serial number, but depending on their social standing and their share of ownership, their interests overlap to some degree...
If, out of those million people, say, 30,000 of them hold all the primary positions in a nation—even if they are split into ten different factions and maintain private armies to fight one another—they still control that state. In essence, they created it; they won't allow it to be run in a way that ignores their interests. They can compete with each other as much as they want, they can shoot at each other, they can tear things apart into six pieces and endure five years of civil war, but there is always a ruling segment of the population... they always govern according to their interests, which are collective and class-based, making them organized—and they utilize laws, political power, and every other form of capital at their disposal to do it...

And everything you say is correct—the media is powerful, the Church is powerful, and voters are more powerful than they realize, though certainly less so than the elite...

But what I am saying is also true; beyond that, every media conglomerate has a CEO, and for him, the system is essentially bottomless...

Look...
The company my neighbor worked for went under, but someone else opened a new one (I think that one's gone too, but that's beside the point)...

The bank where my aunt kept her money failed, so people just moved their funds to a new one...

The political party my distant cousin belonged to collapsed, so people formed a new one...

The country where I was born failed, and people built a new one...

My grandfather was born in a country four generations before me, lived to be nearly a hundred...

I have citizenship papers, I have an ID card—without those, you can't get a driver's license, a job, or avoid getting hauled into a police station if you get caught drunk... that is what citizenship is...

I finished public elementary and high school; I have a monthly transit pass, health insurance, and a Social Security number—all those benefits are great, thanks to God for the benefits...

And that is the state—as far as benefits, education, healthcare, and protection go...

When this one fails, people will just make another one, but for families like the Kennedys, the money will always stay in the account—unless a massive catastrophe wipes out half of Europe along with Switzerland, but even then, I suspect they'd manage to keep something...

you can take his word for it

you know how they used to rig the water systems back in the day to suit certain interests
in those reservoirs, the largest drainage points were always positioned most strategically
so when a drought hits, most people find themselves running dry first
even if that small minority ends up split into sixteen different warring factions over the scraps

someone had to consciously design that reservoir—plan the layout, oversee the construction, and build it from the ground up... because without it, you don't have basic infrastructure. You don't have water. And without water, you don't have him, nor the workers, the military, or the consumers who serve him... not even the horse pulling his carriage
he had to engineer the very conditions required for his way of life, which meant ensuring organized conditions for everyone else he needs to sustain that lifestyle

and there you have it... that’s what a state actually is

I couldn't agree more. What is the point of hoarding such obscene amounts of wealth that you don't even know what to do with it? Having enough to secure a comfortable, high-quality lifestyle is plenty; what we are witnessing here is nothing short of pure megalomania. Just look at how many millions of dollars vanish into corporate scandals—he’ll never actually need that kind of capital for anything legitimate.

Anthony Garcia19 said:What I meant was that the core of this topic is really about hoarding wealth for oneself. It’s more about holding onto it than why someone wants it in the first place—whether that's greed, power, or insecurity—or even what you mentioned about having no specific motive at all (just money being a byproduct of doing work you love). Either way, it boils down to the main question: "Why do you need so much cash?" (that's the title, after all!). Why stack up such massive amounts that you could never actually spend?

A bit late on that one, though. Anyway, I'm off to grab some 🙂!

There is no such thing as "cash." We're talking about equity in a company that an owner built from the ground up. There isn't some vault where they sit around bathing in dollar bills. They use that wealth to generate more wealth through reinvestment, which benefits the rest of the world to varying degrees. It depends on how they invest and how you define "development." But honestly, that concentrated capital has far more growth potential than the combined assets of a bunch of middle-class people of the same scale. Most regular people just spend their money on houses and cars. Massive fortunes are often poured back into developing new technologies.

So, wealth is just a tool.

Motivation? It can be philanthropic. I'll build even more wealth just so I have more to donate. As for the luxury lifestyle—yachts, private jets, designer clothes, mansions—you get used to that stuff easily. You could ask any moderately wealthy person: what do you actually need? You can live fine without half the clothes in your closet, jewelry, or fancy cars. A luxury lifestyle is a slippery slope toward habit.

Even if someone spends money like Bloomberg on expensive yachts, someone else is building those yachts, and someone else is getting paid because of those activities. That said, what American billionaires do—from Rockefeller to Carnegie and beyond—by donating and founding universities, clearly has a much larger developmental impact.
Without the ultra-wealthy, things wouldn't be possible; the average person would spend those billions entirely differently, and the government hasn't exactly shown much interest in managing capital allocation that way. And even when they do, you have to wonder how much they were just copying the private sector's lead!

wanderingcrane5 said:Look, if that's the case, then us just surrendering ourselves to the global market while having a weak government that doesn't even protect us—or more accurately, one that tries to protect us now but faces massive pushback from every single corporate lobbyist out there—basically means we're sitting ducks.

There is a massive difference between having no state at all and having a weak one!

Someone already pointed out that for people like that, money is just something to collect, sort of like how kids hoard napkins at a restaurant.
If they’ve got 100 million, that extra hundred is more vital to them than food is to a guy living on the streets.$33.
It's all about the ego—being the guy with 101 million instead of "just" 100.

I know this guy who has more wealth than I could ever wrap my head around.
He owns everything from high-rise condos to fleets of luxury cars.
And every single time he closes a deal on a new property or a shiny new toy, he tells me, "This is it. I'm set. I don't need anything else."
Then, give it two months, and he’s back to the exact same script.
Last time, I called him out on it, reminded him he said the same thing last time, and he just shrugged and said, "Yeah, well, it's stronger than me."

And God forbid they have a "crisis." If someone is even slightly late paying a bill for $33333, it becomes a massive catastrophe—way bigger than when a regular person goes two months without a paycheck. Because, look, a guy struggling to get by has learned how to survive on scraps, but these people? They *need* massive piles of cash just to cover their basic monthly overhead.

Honestly, I think it's a disorder. Like kleptomania. You know you don't actually need the thing, but you just can't help yourself.

Scott Hall39 said:There is no such thing as "cash." We're talking about equity in a company that an owner built from the ground up. There isn't some vault where they sit around bathing in dollar bills. They use that wealth to generate more wealth through reinvestment, which benefits the rest of the world to varying degrees. It depends on how they invest and how you define "development." But honestly, that concentrated capital has far more growth potential than the combined assets of a bunch of middle-class people of the same scale. Most regular people just spend their money on houses and cars. Massive fortunes are often poured back into developing new technologies.

So, wealth is just a tool.

Motivation? It can be philanthropic. I'll build even more wealth just so I have more to donate. As for the luxury lifestyle—yachts, private jets, designer clothes, mansions—you get used to that stuff easily. You could ask any moderately wealthy person: what do you actually need? You can live fine without half the clothes in your closet, jewelry, or fancy cars. A luxury lifestyle is a slippery slope toward habit.

Even if someone spends money like Bloomberg on expensive yachts, someone else is building those yachts, and someone else is getting paid because of those activities. That said, what American billionaires do—from Rockefeller to Carnegie and beyond—by donating and founding universities, clearly has a much larger developmental impact.
Without the ultra-wealthy, things wouldn't be possible; the average person would spend those billions entirely differently, and the government hasn't exactly shown much interest in managing capital allocation that way. And even when they do, you have to wonder how much they were just copying the private sector's lead!

We already touched on the necessity of the wealthy at the start of this thread. To avoid repeating myself, my take is probably best summarized in my reply to Frogger (post #49).
There’s also a discussion about this over on the Spirituality subforum, in the thread started by Vivekananda: Is money "the work of the devil"?. Like you, most people today find it impossible to imagine a highly advanced society without powerful, wealthy individuals driving it forward. Personally, I disagree.

When the first man arrived and claimed, "This belongs to me," someone should have immediately thrown a stone at him. 🧐

Anthony Garcia19 said:We already touched on the necessity of the wealthy at the start of this thread. To avoid repeating myself, my take is probably best summarized in my reply to Frogger (post #49).
There’s also a discussion about this over on the Spirituality subforum, in the thread started by Vivekananda: Is money "the work of the devil"?. Like you, most people today find it impossible to imagine a highly advanced society without powerful, wealthy individuals driving it forward. Personally, I disagree.

I’d love for you to walk me through how that would even work in practice, you know? Like, how do we avoid holding back the most driven, smartest, or most capable people...
Because honestly, that isn't just some capitalist myth or something invented in the modern era.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:When the first man arrived and claimed, "This belongs to me," someone should have immediately thrown a stone at him. 🧐

Yeah, well, that kind of thing isn't exactly a new phenomenon.

Zachary Mendoza2@

What, back when people were physically stronger? Just kidding—nobody should be getting stoned, then or now. 🙂

This is just a phase in our social evolution. It’s all a byproduct of materialistic concepts. Once we move past them, this whole problem will just vanish.

Karen Rodriguez3 said:I’d love for you to walk me through how that would even work in practice, you know? Like, how do we avoid holding back the most driven, smartest, or most capable people...
Because honestly, that isn't just some capitalist myth or something invented in the modern era.

Exactly. It goes way back, all the way to our earliest communities. Sure, history shows us different types of societies, but we tend to overlook them just because they weren't technologically advanced enough.

A different way of living can't happen without spiritual growth—replacing our current values with a totally new system where material things aren't the top priority anymore. Most people think that's impossible because they assume humans are just naturally greedy and selfish. Honestly, I don't see that as our core nature. I see compassion, friendliness, creativity, and a sense of playfulness at our foundation. To me, selfishness and greed are just leftovers from a brutal struggle for survival in the past. Those pressures still exist today, just in different forms and for different reasons—but I won't get into that, or we'll end up debating politics.

Anthony Garcia19: Neither one serves as a foundation. The true foundation is a person's capacity to become anything at all.
Essentially, you need an environment that prizes empathy, creativity, selflessness, and cooperation. At the same time, selfishness and exploitation must be met with absolute disgrace. This requires constant effort. If you don't maintain it, the first rotten apple in the barrel will ruin everything.
Communism initially succeeded because party officials went out to people who might not have even known how to read or write. They carried Marx's Capital and explained the essentials—human rights, the difference between labor and exploitation, and what defines a healthy society versus a sick one. But once that instruction faltered, charlatans took over. These people were mistaken for being "clever" or "resourceful," when they should have been cast out and punished. Human nature immediately resurfaced and communism collapsed: the apples rotted, and today, egoism is treated as a virtue while man becomes a wolf to man.

I'm not quite sure. I haven't really sat down to dwell on this whole theory about humans being chameleon-like...

If the core of being human is just adapting to whatever environment we find ourselves in, then how do we explain the origin or the shifts in those environments? It's a tricky one. Unless you believe our surroundings aren't actually shaped by us, but by other forces—like nature, some higher power, or something else entirely. Honestly, I’m leaning toward that second option. If I don't, my own theory about human nature being inherently "good" just falls apart. See, if we assume humans are the ones building their own worlds, then the people who argue that we're naturally greedy have a point—because only a bad person could create a bad environment.

I need to chew on this a bit more...🙂

But I'm totally with you on the second part of your post. It's exactly what I was getting at earlier when I mentioned how some systems are just fundamentally good or bad...

Karen Rodriguez3 said:I’d love for you to walk me through how that would even work in practice, you know? Like, how do we avoid holding back the most driven, smartest, or most capable people...
Because honestly, that isn't just some capitalist myth or something invented in the modern era.

How exactly would that prevent the "advanced and intelligent" from doing their thing?

Are we suggesting that having a larger pool of Capital available to a broader segment of society somehow breaks the system?
Is the concern that a higher number of "capable" individuals wouldn't be able to fight for their slice of the pie or build something meaningful?

Or perhaps it's about preventing control over development—and its ultimate results—from being concentrated solely in the hands of a few individuals and massive corporate entities... if that power were decentralized, wouldn't a much wider array of "advanced" minds be able to influence and contribute to progress, while ensuring a greater number of people and organizations actually benefit from what is created?

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Anthony Garcia19: Neither one serves as a foundation. The true foundation is a person's capacity to become anything at all.
Essentially, you need an environment that prizes empathy, creativity, selflessness, and cooperation. At the same time, selfishness and exploitation must be met with absolute disgrace. This requires constant effort. If you don't maintain it, the first rotten apple in the barrel will ruin everything.
Communism initially succeeded because party officials went out to people who might not have even known how to read or write. They carried Marx's Capital and explained the essentials—human rights, the difference between labor and exploitation, and what defines a healthy society versus a sick one. But once that instruction faltered, charlatans took over. These people were mistaken for being "clever" or "resourceful," when they should have been cast out and punished. Human nature immediately resurfaced and communism collapsed: the apples rotted, and today, egoism is treated as a virtue while man becomes a wolf to man.

So why does that happen? Unless those folks arguing that humans are just naturally greedy and selfish are right... What does your chameleon theory say about all this?

Maybe it's just basic math: there's always a few bad apples in any group. A loud, selfish minority usually finds a way to force their own values on the peaceful majority. Maybe we aren't all cut from the same cloth after all.

Anthony Garcia19 said:So why does that happen? Unless those folks arguing that humans are just naturally greedy and selfish are right... What does your chameleon theory say about all this?

Maybe it's just basic math: there's always a few bad apples in any group. A loud, selfish minority usually finds a way to force their own values on the peaceful majority. Maybe we aren't all cut from the same cloth after all.

No, it is quite simple: humans evolve through interaction with their environment. Someone cheats someone else, gets away with it, and profits as planned. They try it again and see that it works, so they adopt a new behavioral model. The environment might not respect them, but it tolerates them, and he profits. Or, if he uses theft, people fear and despise him, yet they do not stop him. Then he finds someone similar to organize with, making them stronger and more successful together. Eventually, some dissatisfied people notice this and say, "Why shouldn't we act just like these successful people?" Everyone else hates them and complains, but in reality, they are just more successful than their surroundings. So, I follow suit.
It becomes infectious. Once it spreads, it becomes obvious that general social morality has gone to hell, people retreat into themselves, and the opportunists take over. Resourcefulness becomes the ideal, while compassion, sharing, empathy, brotherhood, and unity are seen as part of that old, failed system—a system that hates you because you are successful.

Weeds grow faster than crops, stealing the sunlight, water, and nutrients while reproducing more quickly. Weeds grow wherever they can, whereas crops require a specific, favorable environment. If you don't constantly pull the weeds, you will soon have nothing but weeds in your field.

Scott Hall39 said:There is no such thing as "cash." We're talking about equity in a company that an owner built from the ground up. There isn't some vault where they sit around bathing in dollar bills. They use that wealth to generate more wealth through reinvestment, which benefits the rest of the world to varying degrees. It depends on how they invest and how you define "development." But honestly, that concentrated capital has far more growth potential than the combined assets of a bunch of middle-class people of the same scale. Most regular people just spend their money on houses and cars. Massive fortunes are often poured back into developing new technologies.

So, wealth is just a tool.

Motivation? It can be philanthropic. I'll build even more wealth just so I have more to donate. As for the luxury lifestyle—yachts, private jets, designer clothes, mansions—you get used to that stuff easily. You could ask any moderately wealthy person: what do you actually need? You can live fine without half the clothes in your closet, jewelry, or fancy cars. A luxury lifestyle is a slippery slope toward habit.

Even if someone spends money like Bloomberg on expensive yachts, someone else is building those yachts, and someone else is getting paid because of those activities. That said, what American billionaires do—from Rockefeller to Carnegie and beyond—by donating and founding universities, clearly has a much larger developmental impact.
Without the ultra-wealthy, things wouldn't be possible; the average person would spend those billions entirely differently, and the government hasn't exactly shown much interest in managing capital allocation that way. And even when they do, you have to wonder how much they were just copying the private sector's lead!

A tool for what, exactly?
To generate even more wealth—private wealth, presumably—because no one is quite that foolish...
The reality is that the primary driver is corporate; private individuals just extract whatever surplus remains from the system...

Why do people spend money on cars, or any other consumer goods at all?
Just because they feel like it?
Does it really have nothing to do with their mindset, their worldview, their culture, or how their society is organized?
Aren't those internal factors shaped by media influence, while the latter ones are managed by the government and various partners?

Your logic is transparent—you're suggesting that for useful work to actually happen, resources must first be concentrated somewhere to ensure they're used efficiently...

And historically speaking, you aren't wrong—private wealth has frequently acted as one of the main engines of progress...

The issue lies in this underlying assumption that it *has* to be this way—as if no one else could possibly replicate that effect... because apparently, if you gave ordinary people that cash, they’d just waste it on junk, like candy or cigarettes, right?

Then there's the secondary complication: control, and patents...
While the majority might benefit from new technology, the production, consumption, and overall operation of it are strictly bound by the specific conditions under which it was born...
Specifically, the means required for the development of both current and future tech remain under the ownership of a tiny handful of corporations, while the rest of the population simply consumes it...

So, you end up with a small minority holding all the cards, giving them the power to innovate, while everyone else stands in line for the next iPhone, coughs up cash for overpriced prescriptions, and eats patented corn...

See? That's where things get messy...

Even mining companies can drive technological advancement—it happens constantly, sometimes even making the news—but the question remains: where exactly do they get the capital to fund such development?

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Anthony Garcia19: Neither one serves as a foundation. The true foundation is a person's capacity to become anything at all.
Essentially, you need an environment that prizes empathy, creativity, selflessness, and cooperation. At the same time, selfishness and exploitation must be met with absolute disgrace. This requires constant effort. If you don't maintain it, the first rotten apple in the barrel will ruin everything.
Communism initially succeeded because party officials went out to people who might not have even known how to read or write. They carried Marx's Capital and explained the essentials—human rights, the difference between labor and exploitation, and what defines a healthy society versus a sick one. But once that instruction faltered, charlatans took over. These people were mistaken for being "clever" or "resourceful," when they should have been cast out and punished. Human nature immediately resurfaced and communism collapsed: the apples rotted, and today, egoism is treated as a virtue while man becomes a wolf to man.

I don't think human nature "returned." It never left. It was just shoved into this forced shell that barely let it breathe. You can't do that without a dictatorship, obviously. Those scammers didn't suddenly appear after the guidance stopped; they just finally showed their true colors. So, I guess, what does that actually say about what people are really made of?

placidwolf27 said:How exactly would that prevent the "advanced and intelligent" from doing their thing?

Are we suggesting that having a larger pool of Capital available to a broader segment of society somehow breaks the system?
Is the concern that a higher number of "capable" individuals wouldn't be able to fight for their slice of the pie or build something meaningful?

Or perhaps it's about preventing control over development—and its ultimate results—from being concentrated solely in the hands of a few individuals and massive corporate entities... if that power were decentralized, wouldn't a much wider array of "advanced" minds be able to influence and contribute to progress, while ensuring a greater number of people and organizations actually benefit from what is created?

You don't need a PhD to realize we aren't all cut from the same cloth when it comes to talent. Right?
If you take someone who’s naturally driven, capable, and works harder than most, and you constantly force them to split everything they achieve with people who can't help or—let's be real—people who just won't, it won't take long before that high-achiever just says, "screw this, let someone else carry the load."
It's a total simplification, I know, but honestly, it's pretty straightforward.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:No, it is quite simple: humans evolve through interaction with their environment. Someone cheats someone else, gets away with it, and profits as planned. They try it again and see that it works, so they adopt a new behavioral model. The environment might not respect them, but it tolerates them, and he profits. Or, if he uses theft, people fear and despise him, yet they do not stop him. Then he finds someone similar to organize with, making them stronger and more successful together. Eventually, some dissatisfied people notice this and say, "Why shouldn't we act just like these successful people?" Everyone else hates them and complains, but in reality, they are just more successful than their surroundings. So, I follow suit.
It becomes infectious. Once it spreads, it becomes obvious that general social morality has gone to hell, people retreat into themselves, and the opportunists take over. Resourcefulness becomes the ideal, while compassion, sharing, empathy, brotherhood, and unity are seen as part of that old, failed system—a system that hates you because you are successful.

Weeds grow faster than crops, stealing the sunlight, water, and nutrients while reproducing more quickly. Weeds grow wherever they can, whereas crops require a specific, favorable environment. If you don't constantly pull the weeds, you will soon have nothing but weeds in your field.

So, are you basically saying one person can't be more successful than another unless they're cheating?😕