[js8]

I don't buy the focus argument. It looks to me as an argument against free market, towards some kind of central planning. Focus can be surprisingly inefficient.

Isn't the whole point of free market that the money end up distributed to citizens (consumers), who then choose what to do with it, and what problems to tackle?

I also think we have Bill Gates (very focusedly) fighting malaria on one side, and Koch brothers (also focusedly) fighting for coal on the other. I am not convinced that in the sum, the side of Bill Gates has won.

If we perhaps diffuse the money, maybe we will actually find enough people to fight malaria, but there will be less people willing to spread lies about climate change. Because there are actually more ordinary people having trouble with malaria than ordinary people having trouble what to do with a coal mine once coal mining gets out of fashion.

[TeMPOraL]

It is an argument against free market - to the extent that some people think it's a panacea for all problems. It isn't.

Free markets work best when needs are diverse and not easy to identify. The money flows along feedback loops and finds its way to where it serves best. At least for a while, until those with money use it to redirect more money towards them. But that's a topic for another day.

Ultimately, both Gates and Koch brothers got their money in the free market. It's hard to have one without the other. I think it's best to encourage more rich people to be like Gates, because we'll always have plenty of Kochs.