Why We Need People Who Have ‘Too Much Money’

 

Friday night I heard the Cleveland Orchestra at Carnegie Hall. They were wonderful, although less warm-sounding than I remember them being under Dohnanyi and Boulez. They played the Mahler Fifth Symphony, written while the composer was music director at the Vienna Royal Opera. The VRO was financed by the Emperor. Carnegie Hall was given by Andrew Carnegie, a wealthy industrialist.

This, after four pleasant and placid hours spent enjoying Holbein and Rembrandt paintings at the Frick collection, which I visited instead of the Cloisters because I could just walk or use the subway and not have to move my car. The Frick Collection was given by Henry Clay Frick and the Cloisters, by John D. Rockefeller, both of whom were wealthy industrialists.

Is there any aspect of high culture that is not dependent on the generosity of the super-rich? I’ll trade all of leftist politics for one Beethoven string quartet or Vermeer interior.

This is true in other aspects of life, too.  The hospital for which I work was founded on the bequest of a wealthy local industrialist in 1883 and remains solvent largely through the generosity of a wealthy university town. I’ll trade all of leftist politics for one life saved by a laparoscopic appendectomy.

Published in Economics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 51 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Samuel Block Support
    Samuel Block
    @SamuelBlock

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Samuel Block (View Comment):

    Do better.

    I expected that level of juvenile reaction. Why not use an alt-right Pepe meme and be honestly Nazi about it? Does the Daily Stormer auto-play Wagner when you visit? Blocked and reported

    Oh that? That’s word-face. My generations equivalent to totally-face, right on-face, far out-face, even boss-face. And don’t worry about me going full Nazi. I saw that movie with the Maria lady and her seven little people, singing classics like “ABC easy as 123” high up in the mountains. The Nazis were the bad guys in that. Count me out!

    • #31
  2. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):
    The French are probably better at this top down than anyone.

    I agree about culture but their economy is a disaster.

    They’re still among the richest countries and still grow slightly.  It’s not doing well, it can’t because government run things eventually fail, but given the role their government plays they do pretty well. They have us and the Brits to compete with the way children compete with each other, or rival schools.  If we fail to continue to outpace them and if they continue to import hostile culture, they’ll fail faster.   

    • #32
  3. MACHO GRANDE' (aka - Chris Cam… Coolidge
    MACHO GRANDE' (aka - Chris Cam…
    @ChrisCampion

    Having too much money is simply a matter of degree.  Meaning I have some discretionary income to spend on things I want to – a yacht, an extra bowling ball, a donation to a non-profit animal shelter.

    By the “too much” way of thinking, all of anything that might be charitably donated is privilege, yet how many local support agencies of all kinds would *poof* disappear, without all of that support from just yer local Joe Schmo throwing 20 bucks into a hat outside the grocery store.

    Also:  Half the country pays no net income taxes.  Of the half that does pay income taxes, the top 50% of that crew pays 97% of all income taxes.

    In other words, the people with the most money pay, overwhelmingly, the bulk of federal income taxes.  It’s not like 51%.  It’s almost all of it.

    So everything the crybabies complain about is stupid, idiotic, on its face, since someone else is almost literally paying for everything, in terms of the gov’t.

    • #33
  4. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Growing up in Pittsburgh, my town was home to every ethnicity you could think of. I went to school with a mixed bag and no one thought beans about it. In my local public grade school, we went on many field trips which included The Carnegie Museum (my favorite parts were the mummies and the giant Viking ship, and the dinosaurs), to Phipps Conservatory where I fell in love with plants, to Heinz Hall where I fell in love with classical music, to the Carnegie Library every week for story time (read by one of the librarians – no drag queens) and to check out books, to Heinz pickle factory (where I learned to love pickles?) to Frick Park where my dad took us to play.  We were exposed to art, science, reading and music at a young age, and encouraged in these areas, which made a big difference in the lives of ordinary kids.  It took money to create these wonderful places. 

    Wealth isn’t the enemy – sin is.  Money can build a hospital or you can be a Jeffrey Epstein.  

    • #34
  5. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    MACHO GRANDE' (aka – Chri… (View Comment):

    Having too much money is simply a matter of degree. Meaning I have some discretionary income to spend on things I want to – a yacht, an extra bowling ball, a donation to a non-profit animal shelter.

     

    Almost all of us, particularly those of us in the United States, have what people throughout history, and around the world today, would say is “too much money” because we do have enough to spend on discretionary things. We even have enough money to spend a few dollars a month to belong to a club (website) in which we can discuss big ideas (and trivia if we want).

    • #35
  6. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Really? Are you serious? I can’t even.

    Wealthy people, who have stolen thiir money, recycle their ill-gotten profits into “cultural” buildings that perpetuate the centering of “culture” around a narrow definition that exclude non-Europeans and women. By reducing the concert experience to the dead canon of the select white composers, it promotes the supremicist narrative that elevates “proficiency” and “excellence” as superior values, since – surprise! – someone has to participate in the pedagogical-industrial complex to “perform” these works.

    Listening to a concert is simply a self-reinforcing exercise in justifying one’s privilege. It’s an extra level of insult when they play Mahler, whose Jewishness is problematic to say the least these days, and whose Christianist elements in the first symphony do violence to those who experienced the colonialist message implicit in the fourth movement’s unapologetic quotation of Handel’s “He Shall Reign” motif.

    Do better.

    Ok, try this.

    The “He shall reign” quotation is the core of the symphony.  It opens the piece in d minor, on piccolo and oboe over 7 octaves of A’s.  D is the key of the Hallelujah Chorus.  The first theme, although taken from the Songs of a Wayfarer, emphasizes the interval of a fourth, which opens the HSR motif.  The opening of the second movement is HSR inverted with one note left out.  The Jewish theme, by not entering until the third movement, is made subservient to the Christian material.  It is scalar like the Frere Jacques melody rather than arpeggiated like HSR and thus associates with death.  And of course the piece ends with extra brass players tolling HE SHALL REIGN!   Mahler’s first symphony, written in 1888-89, is thus a testimony to his adopting Christianity in 1897.

    (Btw, the only things I looked up were the dates in the last sentence)

    • #36
  7. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    The “He shall reign” quotation is the core of the symphony. It opens the piece in d minor, on piccolo and oboe over 7 octaves of A’s. D is the key of the Hallelujah Chorus. The first theme, although taken from the Songs of a Wayfarer, emphasizes the interval of a fourth, which opens the HSR motif. The opening of the second movement is HSR inverted with one note left out. The Jewish theme, by not entering until the third movement, is made subservient to the Christian material. It is scalar like the Frere Jacques melody rather than arpeggiated like HSR and thus associates with death. And of course the piece ends with extra brass players tolling HE SHALL REIGN! Mahler’s first symphony, written in 1888-89, is thus a testimony to his adopting Christianity in 1897.

     

    Bravo! Especially for not calling the final movement the last movement, in case there were any Blumine purists in the room. 

    • #37
  8. The Cynthonian Inactive
    The Cynthonian
    @TheCynthonian

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/uw-medicine-receives-50-million-donation-to-start-brain-institute-that-will-study-addiction-alzheimers-and-other-brain-disorders/

    $50M ain’t chump change. 

     

    • #38
  9. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    The “He shall reign” quotation is the core of the symphony. It opens the piece in d minor, on piccolo and oboe over 7 octaves of A’s. D is the key of the Hallelujah Chorus. The first theme, although taken from the Songs of a Wayfarer, emphasizes the interval of a fourth, which opens the HSR motif. The opening of the second movement is HSR inverted with one note left out. The Jewish theme, by not entering until the third movement, is made subservient to the Christian material. It is scalar like the Frere Jacques melody rather than arpeggiated like HSR and thus associates with death. And of course the piece ends with extra brass players tolling HE SHALL REIGN! Mahler’s first symphony, written in 1888-89, is thus a testimony to his adopting Christianity in 1897.

    Bravo! Especially for not calling the final movement the last movement, in case there were any Blumine purists in the room.

    The Blumine was not last.  It followed the opening movement, before the Scherzo.  Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra will be playing it at my concert #3, in Symphony Hall in Boston, October 29.  Be there or be square!

    • #39
  10. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    The Blumine was not last. It followed the opening movement, before the Scherzo. Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra will be playing it at my concert #3, in Symphony Hall in Boston, October 29. Be there or be square!

    I was imprecise, writing in haste; I meant not calling the last movement the Fourth. It would be the Fifth, in the same sense Bruckner’s 9th is the 11th, sort of.  

    I will be in Boston the week before. Dang! 

    • #40
  11. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    I Walton (View Comment):

    Depends on a lot of stuff. I’m in France right now. They’ve been around longer than us, are more homogeneous, and beauty, broadly defined is obviously very important. I’m impressed by the beauty most everywhere, even ordinary things. But most museums, and organized displays, are controlled from above with outrageous taxes top down taste, control and funding. Some rich pay for things, but now it’s mostly the government. The really beautiful things predate the modern state that funds their displays. Our system is very different but moving towards their top down government controlled system. Our successful rich funded most of our best museums. They weren’t old wealth, they were new rich who made their fortunes themselves, and spent their own wealth to create these things. The French are probably better at this top down than anyone. Their elite run things, fund things mostly through the government (which, unlike here, is staffed by their elite) and most French seem to go along, after all there really is a lot of beauty everywhere. But government in charge of top down just won’t work for us, and in the long run it probably won’t work for them either.

    Elite works, government pretending to be elite, doesn’t.

    A government by and of the people with  anti-elitist, quota-driven, and iconoclastic streaks such as ours cannot possibly maintain quality museums over the long haul. 

    • #41
  12. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    MACHO GRANDE' (aka – Chri… (View Comment):

    Having too much money is simply a matter of degree. Meaning I have some discretionary income to spend on things I want to – a yacht, an extra bowling ball, a donation to a non-profit animal shelter.

    By the “too much” way of thinking, all of anything that might be charitably donated is privilege, yet how many local support agencies of all kinds would *poof* disappear, without all of that support from just yer local Joe Schmo throwing 20 bucks into a hat outside the grocery store.

    Also: Half the country pays no net income taxes. Of the half that does pay income taxes, the top 50% of that crew pays 97% of all income taxes.

    In other words, the people with the most money pay, overwhelmingly, the bulk of federal income taxes. It’s not like 51%. It’s almost all of it.

    So everything the crybabies complain about is stupid, idiotic, on its face, since someone else is almost literally paying for everything, in terms of the gov’t.

    Yeah, but they still have discretionary income left over and we want that too. 

    • #42
  13. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    The Blumine was not last. It followed the opening movement, before the Scherzo. Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra will be playing it at my concert #3, in Symphony Hall in Boston, October 29. Be there or be square!

    I was imprecise, writing in haste; I meant not calling the last movement the Fourth. It would be the Fifth, in the same sense Bruckner’s 9th is the 11th, sort of.

    I will be in Boston the week before. Dang!

    So shall I be.  Lunch?

    • #43
  14. Roderic Fabian Coolidge
    Roderic Fabian
    @rhfabian

    Wealthy people don’t act like Scrooge McDuck.  They don’t keep their money in a big vault and go down sometimes to play with it.

    They have their money invested in all kinds of enterprises.  This results in growth of the economy and job creation.  

    Sure, they might invest it in foreign companies.  They might invest it foolishly.  But when they aren’t wise with it they are punished severely — they lose it.  

    Better that capital be in the hands of those who know how to use it; this benefits the whole society.

    • #44
  15. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Roderic Fabian (View Comment):
    They have their money invested in all kinds of enterprises. This results in growth of the economy and job creation.

    The bottom line is the super wealthy are just like you and me: a family living in a house (albeit a big one) with all the worries about problem kids, health issues and dogs or other pets and what to have for dinner tonight. 

    • #45
  16. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Roderic Fabian (View Comment):
    They have their money invested in all kinds of enterprises. This results in growth of the economy and job creation.

    The bottom line is the super wealthy are just like you and me: a family living in a house (albeit a big one) with all the worries about problem kids, health issues and dogs or other pets and what to have for dinner tonight.

    Yep. It’s funny how the bills seem to scale up with your income. 

    • #46
  17. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Roderic Fabian (View Comment):
    This results in growth of the economy and job creation.

    This idea that “job creation” is a social benefit of saving and investment (the modern version of Bastiat’s “Broken Windows Fallacy”) is a main weapon of socialism.  Socialism is the perfect solution to the “problem” of “job creation”.  Once all saving and investment is done by the State, everyone immediately has a job.

    It is a nonsensical idea, as basic economics proves, but one which the majority of Ricocheteers seem to have accepted.

     

    • #47
  18. J Ro Member
    J Ro
    @JRo

    cdor (View Comment):

    The Dowager Jojo (View Comment):
    Like the guy who recently paid 50 million dollars for a mighty nice house and tore it down, so he could build a different house there

    I would hazard a guess that the guy didn’t build that new house himself. So he did spread his money around by hiring a lot of high-quality craftsmen to create his new digs.

    I often stop to watch old, unwanted houses being torn down where I live. The most obvious thing about it is that it requires time, labor, special equipment, and thus, it costs money and creates jobs. 

    • #48
  19. J Ro Member
    J Ro
    @JRo

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    The Dowager Jojo (View Comment):
    But I get your point, and even the conspicuous waste of tearing down a house to build a different one does create a lot of jobs.

    The Broken Windows Fallacy strikes again!

    (I know you were probably being facetious, but the Fallacy exposed by Bastiat does live on today, stronger than ever, in the form of the “Let’s Stimulate the Economy to Create Jobs!” cult.)

    Bastiat’s Broken Windows argument rests on the fact that the window was valued by its owner and he had no intention of replacing it. It was broken by accident or in an act of vandalism.

    Buying land and tearing down an existing house to replace it with a new one is a simple case of a property owner acting upon his subjective valuation of the building. The owner values the old house and the cost of disposing of it less than he values the new house and the cost of building it. That is his right. Your  subjective valuation of his actions (or mine) have nothing to do with it, and rightly so.

    If an arsonist had burned down the old house (or it was wiped out by a tsunami) which the new owner had intended to keep, then the Broken Windows Fallacy would apply.

    • #49
  20. The Dowager Jojo Inactive
    The Dowager Jojo
    @TheDowagerJojo

    The owner values the old house and the cost of disposing of it less than he values the new house and the cost of building it. That is his right. Your subjective valuation of his actions (or mine) have nothing to do with it, and rightly so.

    Our subjective evaluation of his actions has nothing to do with his decision or his right to make it, and rightly so. But our subjective evaluation does have something to do with a post about subjective evaluation of the uses to which rich people put their excess money.

    I am very comfortable with other people’s wasteful conspicuous consumption in general, considering the alternatives. My lifestyle surely constitutes wasteful conspicuous consumption from somebody’s perspective.  But still sometimes you have to shake your head. 

    Doesn’t invalidate the point of the original post. I also am grateful somebody supports cultural treasures that I enjoy but could never fund. 

     

    • #50
  21. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    J Ro (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    The Dowager Jojo (View Comment):
    But I get your point, and even the conspicuous waste of tearing down a house to build a different one does create a lot of jobs.

    The Broken Windows Fallacy strikes again!

    (I know you were probably being facetious, but the Fallacy exposed by Bastiat does live on today, stronger than ever, in the form of the “Let’s Stimulate the Economy to Create Jobs!” cult.)

    Bastiat’s Broken Windows argument rests on the fact that the window was valued by its owner and he had no intention of replacing it. It was broken by accident or in an act of vandalism.

    Buying land and tearing down an existing house to replace it with a new one is a simple case of a property owner acting upon his subjective valuation of the building. The owner values the old house and the cost of disposing of it less than he values the new house and the cost of building it. That is his right. Your subjective valuation of his actions (or mine) have nothing to do with it, and rightly so.

    If an arsonist had burned down the old house (or it was wiped out by a tsunami) which the new owner had intended to keep, then the Broken Windows Fallacy would apply.

    Your interpretation of Bastiat and mine are opposites.

    • #51
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.