[hideo7746]

Because an excess of stamps can't feed, clothe, or educate someone. It can't help house someone and it can't save someone's life.

Money on the other hand can do much more good not sitting in the bank account of someone who has more of it than they could ever spend. So keeping it in there for the purpose of 'scoring points' is seen by many, myself included, as obscene.

Also, I disagree that collecting money is the only hobby that would receive this criticism. Personally I would also find it obscene to collect insulin, clean water, and residential housing to name a few.

[scotty79]

He doesn't really consume the money he gathered. So the fact that he owns so much just puts a slight deflationary pressure on the economy, nothing more. Of course he could use the money to buy goods and services taking them away from poor people, or purchase political power to achieve harmful goals but as long as he doesn't do that too much his hoarding is no issue. It's not like government can't just print more money and give it to the poor if it wants to.

Besieds his money doesn't sit it in the bank. He has it in short term tresury bonds. Which means he basically lent it all to the government. If this money is not used to help the poor then blame the government because it controlls Warren Buffett money until it gives it back to him.

[MichaelZuo]

This logic doesn't quite makes sense. If that money is actually spent on consumer goods, instead of being collected or invested in long lived assets, then inflation will go up across the board for everyone so effectively there will be no net difference.

It especially punishes the middle class because the money in their wallets would buy less proportionally.

If anything ideally proportionally less money should be available for chasing after consumer goods.

[nasmorn]

The later is quite popular in some circles