[doktrin]

>> In exactly what way am I worse off simply because some rich tool has a private jet or a Bugatti Veyron?

Measures of "happiness" and "contentedness" are tightly bound to our environment. Being at the respective top or bottom of a given social order has a meaningful impact on quality of life perceptions. Obviously, some Maslow'esque hierarchy of needs applies here, and no-one in the world is happily starving.

> But even when they're not, they almost never cost you anything; in fact, because the rich choose to soak themselves with Veblen goods, their extravagant purchases actually help you by driving the economy.

That seems to make the implicit assumption that conspicuous consumption is the most effective means of investment for those assets. It may well be the case, but I've never seen it suitably demonstrated.

[tptacek]

Veblen goods aren't the most effective means of investment for the greater good, but their exorbitant cost funds the salaries of the craftspeople and engineers and technicians who make them, and the designers and writers who market them.

I'm not saying that buying a Bugatti is a social good; it clearly isn't. I'm just saying that those purchases aren't a drag on the middle class, except to the extent that they represent a missed opportunity for a more-just burden sharing to offset a needless sacrifice by the working class that could realistically be addressed by the rich.

Again the point is: simply sitting around being rich isn't intrinsically harmful to the lower and middle classes.

[doktrin]

> Again the point is: simply sitting around being rich isn't intrinsically harmful to the lower and middle classes.

Fair. I've long held the opinion that, within reason, "less" income inequality is better than "more". However, your statement is accurate.