On my blog about the portrayal of business in film, I discuss Martha, Inc.: The Story of Martha Stewart. It occurred to me in thinking about Martha Stewart that there probably aren’t many billionaires (or, in Martha’s case, former billionaires) that I would want to have to dinner. (I’m not sure I would even want Martha to have me to dinner.)
Billionaires are likely to be unpleasant people because it usually takes obsession to make a billion. Millionaires can be anybody who just wants to be comfortable and has a little talent. But billionaires don’t stop at that reasonable point – they’ve usually got something driving them to more, some obsession, that often makes them unpleasant to be around, and complain about not having the merlot (see the first scene of the above film).
But this same quality of unpleasantness often ends up being good for society. The billion dollars is a byproduct of billionaires' ambition, not something that they can really use selfishly. Sure, they might buy a lot of cars, or pots in Martha’s case, but it takes a LOT of pots and cars to use up a few billion. So they wind up giving it away – e.g., to defeat AIDS. And even if their money rots in the bank, billionaires have still come up with a product that improves peoples’ lives (produces consumer surplus, in the technical sense) or provides employment. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Money doesn't just "rot in the bank". It's made available to help other people finance their projects. Projects that they, and the bank, think are worth paying it back with interest.
That's a very productive use.
Posted by: Gil | February 03, 2004 at 05:05 PM
Gil you said exactly what was going to say.
Think of all the economic activity (and thus jobs)that is made
possible because banks have money to loan. Think
of the amazing increases in standard of living
because people can get loans: home, business, auto, education etc. Not to mention all the
opportunities made possible by credit cards.
Posted by: phil | February 04, 2004 at 07:30 AM