[kiba]

I think access to that much capital as assess to strategic resource, not as wealth for individuals.

At that level of wealth, it doesn't make sense to think about fancy cars and mansions and living an extravagant and luxurious lifestyle. At that point, you got it made.

However, if you're talking about building something meaningful, that's a different matter entirely. That requires far more capitals than what is required to sustain a person indefinitely. There are shows that I would love to revive and reboot, such as Stargate. There are researches I want to do or fund, such as research into 3D printing, or do long term research grants so that people can do meaningful work.

The money's not for living. It's for projects. If your personal projects don't require that much money, you can always give it away to fund other people's projects.

[rickydroll]

I agree with you that great wealth can be used to fund meaningful research and development. Unfortunately, as we have seen, great wealth is used to distort society to reinforce their ability to hold onto wealth.

[amelius]

But the article is about basic research. Do you think that we can cut basic research just so that one rich guy can have projects?

[kiba]

I was commenting on people bemoaning about billionaires being too rich, with the implication that billionaires shouldn't ever need that much money.

I don't necessarily agree with the idea of cutting basic research programs and how it's actually structured(short termism, prioritizing novel results over building solid foundation, etc).