A YOUNG couple in a Melbourne capital city could spend $AU 1 million ($US 0.65 or £0.48 million) to get a small house or larger apartment.
There may be other expenses in life including a nice family wedding with maybe a $AU 7 million engagement ring like the now Mrs. Sánchez Bezos has, although that’s only an online estimate. Of course, Mr. Jeff Bezos can afford it without taking out a loan.
An underlying concern about the images of wealth is that most of the world’s population will never have enough money to be comfortable. Too many people live pay check to pay check and more don’t earn enough to ever improve their lifestyles.
Should there be a limit to how much money a person has, irrelevant of how good or generous they are, how hard they work or how much they have improved the world?
The money above a limit, maybe $US 10 million, could be taken to help the rest of the people get food, housing and an education.
***
Big wedding almost underwater
There is truth in the saying “money can’t buy happiness” and nor can it buy you the prime wedding spot in Venice.
Surely everyone wishes Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez a happy wedding and life although the multimillion-dollar wedding event might seem indulgent for the average Venetian citizen.
The real problem Venice is concerned with, apart from the rising ocean, is the invasion by tourists. In most cases the invasion force comes bearing money, cameras and attitude and the crush is every day, every weekend and likely to get worse.
What Venice really need is time to fix the flooding issue, time to rebuild their community based on residents, not visitors, and perhaps to be treated with respect.
They have some support with Bezos and Sanchez donating €1 million to help scientific research on Venice’s problems.
***
Failing by a few percent
The approach of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to increase defense spending from 2% to 5% of their countries’ Gross Domestic Product presents a quandary. Would it be best to be ready to protect or feed and house their citizens?
NATO’s current problem is how can they help Ukraine, who is not a member, without upsetting Russia too much.
If NATO increases spending on weaponry for Ukraine, that would be seen as positive by most but weapons don’t make the world a better place. Is spending more money, significantly more money on defense or offense, the best approach?
The other option of spending money on making people live much better might lead to less people being interested in wars. Happy, well-fed and -housed people want a settled and peaceful life./PN
