Thread by @bansisharma

1. On Utter Idiocy of Envy of the Rich
Many envy the rich because they don't have much. Others get on board the envy train out of sheer ignorance. Politicians prey upon them all to amass riches and power for themselves.

2. This is by no means a thread in defense of the rich. I have no particular yen for the rich. I have known rich people who are truly some of the best among us. And I have known rich people who are the scum of the earth. The same goes for the poor.

3. Values make a person. Wealth by itself neither creates values nor destroys them, but that is a topic for another day. This is a thread about money, and I intend to show you that, so long as it is amassed legally and ethically, it matters little how much of it the rich have.

4. In other words, envy of the rich in today's world, in western liberal democracies, is fundamentally, utterly baseless and pointless. I say in today's world, because things were different in centuries past when most wealth was hereditary. Thank God that is no longer the case.

5. Let us turn to what happens to wealth in the hands of the rich, and why we shouldn't sweat it. Top 10% almost always have their money invested. Remember, even the money deposited in the bank is fully (many times fully actually) invested, if not by the owner then by the bank.

6. Other than literally keeping one's money under a mattress, there is no way not to have one's money invested. It always is. The only question is whether the owner invests it directly or indirectly, by depositing in a bank, which loans it to someone else to invest.

7. Ultimately, there are only two things you can do with money (no matter how much or how little of it you have):
a) Spend it (thereby growing the economy)
b) Give it away (thereby enabling someone else to repeat the cycle)
That's it! Try as hard as you may, there's nothing else.

8. The only way the money stops getting invested (or more accurately economic brakes get applied, and there is a deceleration in overall investment in an economy) is when ...

9. ... there is no worthwhile endeavor (i.e. a product or service that money can produce which will be more valuable for consumers than what it costs to produce it) to invest in, i.e. when there is no demand for the money in the economy.

10. And that is a macroeconomic condition, neither controlled by nor dependent on who owns the money, i.e. independent of wealth distribution.

11. What we as a society should obsess over is ways to create economic opportunity and fulfillment for the largest number of people, not fret over wealth distribution, which is nothing more than some molecular orientation inside electronic memory banks for record keeping.

12. Will it really upset the universe if an electronic book entry moves a few more billions into Jeff Bezos account because he fulfilled orders for tens of millions of people who received what they wanted at a price they liked?

13. Now if you have a problem with Amazon's business model and its impact on small retailers and thereby on society, that is absolutely a worthwhile thing to discuss and think about.

14. Like I said, we should obsess over how to create opportunities and fulfillment for the largest number of people. Even Jeff Bezos would be interested in that dialogue, if the guy is invited respectfully to engage, and he may even have some brilliant ideas on how to do that.

15. But that is separate and distinct from how many billions Jeff Bezos has in his bank account. If we end up doing right by the people, should we really care if Jeff Bezos ends up with even more billions?

16. Conversely, if we do wrong by the people and create more misery for many, does it matter if Jeff Bezos loses his billions? I submit not.

17. Focus on creating more opportunity for more people through innovative ideas and wholesome effort (that's the only way), teach our children the value of hard work and kindness toward others, and let the billions flow where they may. Money is always at work 24/7.

The End.

BTW, there are two distinct periods in the last 100 years when 'wealth distribution' measures significantly improved. One was The Great Depression and the other was the recent financial crisis, i.e. The Great Recession. That's how stupid the 'wealth distribution' fixation is.