This is what normal people do. The real question is why certain wealthy people think they need to throw away the money that they extract from consumers and employees on things like cocaine, vacation houses and prostitutes.
I hope that people will do something more constructive with the resources they extract from others labor, that's all. Drugs and prostitution serve the purpose of transient sensory gratification, and do not build anything.
Of course, money is not real and it does not disappear when it is spent. What is real is the resources and labor extracted at the expense of others to provide and procure these services. Most likely, my examples could be improved and aren't worth discussing in particular.
I'm taking exception to lavish spending and resource allotment which does not even make the person spending the money happy, yet is done at the expense of others who have real needs that are going unmet. I do think an act like spending $200,000 on a bottle of wine at a restaurant just for the heck of it, while the purchaser might have hundreds of employees for whom 200k would be a life changing relief, can be seen as sociopathic.
The meme that capitalism is exploitation should be considered harmful. In market societies, money is (in general) not forcibly extracted and trade certainly doesn't happen (in general) at the expense of others.
I understand where you're coming from. It seems unfair. Don't worry though, plenty of cocaine and prostitutes are left for the proletariat. In fact I think average consumption is about even down the ladder. We no longer have to make do with religion.
Would it be any better if it was the result if their own labour rather than 'extracted from others'?
You are getting into an argument about how people should use the resources that they have been rewarded with. This is difficult, because reducing the rewards punish the responsible, and conditional rewards are difficult to implement if the sources of that reward are heterogeneous or disorganized, such as the consumers of mass-produced goods.
Not to say it can't be done, but it's not as simple as sprinkling magic social responsibility dust onto capitalism.
It is the fruits of their own labor. I agree this is a very large topic, and it's not really possible to discuss it here without spending all day composing.
It's more about personal responsibility and ethics than an economic system.
I think the rational motivation behind the common wisdom that coke and prostitutes = bad stems from the effects on regular people as an effective person hones his craft and becomes really good at pursuing c&p. Namely, he will be looking for more women to have sex with, better prostitutes, and possibly enticing women you care about into his lifestyle.
On the other hand, the humble, successful businessman simply becomes a better neighbor to all of us, and probably creates an environment where our loved ones stand to benefit.
Are you thinking of yourself as a human in the context of other humans? That's the perspective where this is rational.
If you're in a system with a bunch of humble rich guys, people will be forced to be thoughtful and conscientious. In a system of cocaine and no-value relationships, your daughter is seduced while you're nursing a hangover, and then you die of heart disease.
It isn't about stealing women, but rather creating a sustainable lifestyle where people grow and have a manageable environment.
It's not about my motivations - I'm commenting about the question the article asks. This guy should not be held up as abnormal in some way - people like Larry Ellison should. While quite common, obsession with material wealth and the drive to acquire it beyond reason is a perverse state, not healthy or natural.
People who make it their life's work to study human beings generally believe that humans are motivated by the drives to acquire, to bond, to defend, and to learn.
The drive to acquire is fundamental to all animals. Getting stuff is therefore one of the prime meanings of life.
