Leave Sean Parker Alone.

Why resenting the nouveau riche goes against conventional economic wisdom

It’s easy to hate Sean Parker. The guy’s a highly visible billionaire in depressed economic conditions - most of us will never see his wealth. Not only was his wedding environmentally destructive, the act of him throwing a couple mill at California regulators served as a reminder of the two-tiered system of rules and justice in this country. Betraying his supreme lack of self-awareness, Parker later wrote a 9,500 word treatise trying to defuse some of the claims he perceived as mistaken, thinking that casual readers would calmly internalize the points therein, instead of focusing on the fact that it was 9,500 words long.

I’m skeptical, however, that the Sean Parker hate train runs purely on a combination of environmental activism, a sense of justice under the law, and a disdain for long reads. I think there’s something else - perhaps people don’t like Sean Parker because he spent a lot of money on something as tacky, tasteless, and temporary as his Lord of the Rings wedding when many don’t have that money. He spent more of his wealth than most of us will make in our lifetimes, in a day. And I think this should actually be celebrated, not discouraged.

I’m not saying this because I particularly like extravagant, fantasy-themed weddings. It’s not something I’d ever consider doing, even if I had the money. But what basic economics teaches us is far too clear - spending is good for the economy. That wedding was tantamount to $4.5 million that flowed out of Sean Parker’s hands into the coffers of the workers at the hotel and everyone else who helped put the wedding together - a group that even when put together is likely less wealthy than Parker. Spending greases the wheels of the economy, creating demand and thus jobs, and it ought to be considered a minor victory whenever those with the greatest capacity for spending exercise it.

Spending absurd amounts of money at once is something that new money types like Parker do more than “traditional” rich people. That’s why many people who aren’t born into wealth but become rich end up losing their wealth. But this is an ideal outcome! It should be the case that people transition out of the upper class and a new set of people transition into it - this is only a sign (but obviously, not a sole indicator) of a vibrant economy where a lot of money is being spent (and lost). We should spare our resentment for those who sit on their wealth, storing it by the trillions in offshore bank accounts, essentially failing to uphold their part in the capitalist equation by refusing to reinvest.

You might argue that simply spending on something he wants isn’t redistributive enough - why didn’t he donate that $4.5 million to charity? The problem I have with this pseudo-consequentialist argument is that it can lead to absurd conclusions - how much should billionaires give to charity? Is it fair to call them evil if they don’t spend every last cent of their savings on whatever will maximize the welfare of others? And that logic extends to the middle class too - if you don’t donate all of the savings in your bank account to charity, are you allowing kids to starve? I find that it’s simply easier to draw the line by saying that we only owe as much to society as we democratically decide we owe - our respective tax rates.

So let’s keep calling Sean Parker out on his lack of self-awareness, the environmental damage he’s caused,or his ability to evade the reach of the law. But let’s avoid the impulse to recoil whenever a rich person parts with their money.