[vharuck]

In my experience, all wealth comes down to either (1) producing and using something yourself, or (2) convincing somebody else to give it to you. Most of us trade labor or goods for wealth, convincing others that our stuff is worth the wealth they give.

If you want more wealth for your work, you need the other side to value it more. Better goods and labor are the obvious choice, but that's difficult. Better schmoozing is less effort and good payoff. Epstein was a paragon of this skill. Also companies that spend tons on advertising, like Coca Cola. Everyone knows their soda exists, but the ads are meant to convince you that you need one right now. No need to improve their product or innovate cheaper production. They just lean on the persuasion.

I can't think of a way to avoid this. If you want more money, it has to come from somebody. How could there be an unbiased and impersonal way of redistributing it?

[drugstorecowboy]

This might be a little pedantic and certainly off topic, but Coke ads really aren't intended to convince you that you need one right now, they are intended to make sure they are the first drink you think of when you think of sodas. Everytime a waitress says "oh sorry will Pepsi be ok?" Coke ads have achieved their purpose even though they didn't sell any soda or change your preferences.

RC Cola exists right alongside Coca Cola, but has a marketing budget that is a tiny tiny fraction of Coke's, do you ever hear anyone ask for an RC Cola? Coke spends on marketing so they don't become RC Cola, not to convince you of anything.