It is bad for the economy, that is why. Since you are a member of the Dunning-Kruger school of economics, you don't have the right tools to see it. Which is not to say she doesn't deserve to be wealthy, but a billion dollars? If it wasn't for the economic harm, it would be no big deal, but...
Oprah is just one example, though. Our economy is driven overwhelmingly by consumer spending. Which is why the consumer confidence index is a major leading indicator. However, someone who controls billions doesn't spend very much of it on consumer goods. And when they do, it is usually on high margin goods which have a very low velocity. Most of her money is tied up in the infrastructure of her various companies. Which is good for the economy. The rest is invested. Now investment is good, but it is definitely possible to have too much money to invest. Because finding a good return on investment can get difficult and that leads to a risk of bubbles.
We currently have a situation where all of the productivity growth, and then some, goes into the hands of the upper 10%. That means the economy cannot grow without the job creators, also known as consumers, taking on debt. And we recently experienced where that can lead.
As to the influence, that is straight up social Darwinism. And more attuned to a monarchy than a democracy. Why should she have a greater influence on politics than you or I? I know, I know. She does. But why should she? That is not the principles this country was founded on. It was one of the principles we rebelled against.
Yeah, I know. No unicorns or fairy dust. I can imagine your disappointment. |
