I don’t disagree that wealth can become an obsession. (Nor do I disagree that wealth of itself, without accomplishment, is unworthy of adulation, although neither is being poor and addicted, defecating in the streets and leaving used needles all over the place, as in e.g. parts of San Fransisco. Those poor that are a substantial burden and even hazard to others, are certainly not virtuous poor, especially not if their impairment is a matter of will or other self-impairment.)
But wealth is far from the only potential obsession, and not even the most destructive. Other activities that can become obsessions include eating, abusing drugs or alcohol, thrill-seeking, sex, and doubtless other pursuits that carried to excess, are harmful to self and sometimes to others, and unproductive (and being unproductive is of itself harmful to others). And the pursuit of power over others, except for a limited time as a means of serving them (public sector), or leading a productive organization (private sector), is far more addictive and destructive than wealth alone. Fear the bureaucrat who can tell you how much is too much, or when a puddle becomes a protected wetland! And fearing them, limit their power!
I strongly disagree that people’s conduct should be characterized by wealth (or for that matter by an eating disorder that’s not acutely dysfunctional), because even if there is some correlation, it’s only statistical, and does not accurately describe any particular individual, who may be an exception to the trend.
And whether it’s implied in the article or not, I’m absolutely opposed to government involvement in deciding who is too rich, or too poor, or too fat, or too skinny (although government certainly has some role to play if someone got wealthy or poor due to some criminal activity). Nothing wrong with a trusted neutral clearinghouse on information regarding what seems to be a healthy norm, so long as it’s free of ideology, and especially of collectivist ideology (especially, because that sort tends to seek to impose itself on others by definition); but it’s up to the individual, and ONLY the individual, to decide when their behavior is productive (for example, allowing both comforts for them and their family, while still having additional resources to be generous with others, without having to choose between the two very often), and when it’s counterproductive (as in obsession, or morbid obesity, to use the other example I’ve mentioned a couple of times). And it’s up to others to decide which unproductive persons they’ll voluntarily support (with perhaps some hope of reform), and which they won’t.
A superficial examination cannot determine what is reasonable behavior. For some, first class is a waste of money, while for others, arriving ready to function immediately is well worth the cost, indeed, effectively less expensive. Except after-the-fact, when some rich young idiot splatters their million dollar supercar (and maybe themselves or some innocent bystander), nobody but the individual can determine what is worthwhile, and what is mere conspicuous consumption.
Disclaimer: I’m neither wealthy (except as most of us are compared to those in very poor countries), nor poor, although having avoided excessive debt or extravagance, I don’t necessarily have to choose between a modest selection of toys and helping others (and by that, I don’t count taxes). I respect those like the late Mother Teresa, but have no desire to emulate them, thinking that contemplating higher matters and occasionally indulging petty pursuits need not be mutually exclusive.