I don't know if the assumption that people buy only luxury with their excess money and moreover that the spending of excess money is bad.
If you had millionaires and billionaires who lived frugally it would mean no demand for goods and services you and I and most people contribute to. That they can invest in ideas means other people get to work pursuing those ideas.
If we didn't seek to be rich (or even wealthy)and we were all just getting by with "living wages", in the first place, we would still be in a place where there was low demand for things and there would be little spare money to do non-essential things. It'd like living in 1980s India or China or Indonesia.
On the other hand, frivolous consumption is a problem (disposable thises (these?) and disposable thats (those?) contribute to environmental damage.
That said, the best thing we could do is slow pop growth to replacement levels rather than growth. That means educating poor people everywhere and getting them on contraceptives.
If you had millionaires and billionaires who lived frugally it would mean no demand for goods and services you and I and most people contribute to. That they can invest in ideas means other people get to work pursuing those ideas.
If we didn't seek to be rich (or even wealthy)and we were all just getting by with "living wages", in the first place, we would still be in a place where there was low demand for things and there would be little spare money to do non-essential things. It'd like living in 1980s India or China or Indonesia.
On the other hand, frivolous consumption is a problem (disposable thises (these?) and disposable thats (those?) contribute to environmental damage.
That said, the best thing we could do is slow pop growth to replacement levels rather than growth. That means educating poor people everywhere and getting them on contraceptives.