But when the question is “what is so good about hoarding wealth?” and then it goes on to equal that to hoarding newspapers, the answer is “because you can do a lot more with money than with newspapers”.
If you were trying to answer the rhetorical title then fine. But a) it really didn’t come off that way and b) you’re still wrong because the observable fact is that over a certain amount money is useless and they are hoarding it.
Because they could do that as millionaires. The hoarding comes from the excess.
Flawed logic again.
Just because they could do it als millionaire doesn’t make it not useful as billionaire.
Quite the opposite, as more money means more power. And more power is more useful.
Useful for who? Isn’t it a well known heuristic that more money/power doesnt always improve your own quality of life?
At this point you have to be willfully ignoring what I’m saying so what’s the point of continuing this?
No point. Go on. My position is my position.
Look, billionaires are hoarders. Just because money is useful doesn’t make them not hoarders.
I agree.
But when the question is “what is so good about hoarding wealth?” and then it goes on to equal that to hoarding newspapers, the answer is “because you can do a lot more with money than with newspapers”.
Nobody asked that question.
It is literally the title of the post.
The title is rhetorical.
Must be, otherwise you would just say what ever it takes to save face.
And even if, the question was still asked. So your “nobody” isn’t true.
But you confirmed more then once that talking with you is a waste of time.
For the future. Just because someone states an observable fact, doesn’t meant that the person thinks it is good that it is that way.
If you were trying to answer the rhetorical title then fine. But a) it really didn’t come off that way and b) you’re still wrong because the observable fact is that over a certain amount money is useless and they are hoarding it.