While I have no objection to long ranty posts - I write enough of them myself - as a matter of practicality I'm going to ignore most of it and stick to the questions to keep the walls of text under control.
> You can look at that and say "this is optimal" but I am very unsure as to what you're then measuring.
Well, we started back in ~1,000AD with 0 people who own such a boat. Now in ~2,000AD we have >1 person with such a boat. Ideally we'd like to be as close as possible to a world where everyone has such a boat. So 1 person isn't ideal but, y'know it is a start and we're going to need to have 1 person before we get to 2. Probably it is about as good as we can manage right now. Bezos is a good candidate for the 1st person, he's done some pretty amazing things.
> Why would anyone go hungry and uneducated if Taylor Swift is angry? What is the process by which you see that happening?
She might not donate the money. She's choosing to give money away because it won't impact her lifestyle, so if you take money from her on the theory that it doesn't impact her lifestyle maybe she stops. And she's probably more efficient in spending it than the practical alternatives.
> Let's take TS as an example. What is it she is being rewarded for, is it efficient allocation of capital? Is that why people buy her songs? Is that what's made her so incredibly wealthy? Do you think that if she was rewarded somewhat less, that she'd stop making music? Stop touring? In fact, imagine she never got more money. Do you think she's making music because she's saving up for something she cannot currently afford? Does she have a lifestyle that's unsustainable without earning even more money?
Yes to all of the above. I assume. I don't know much about Taylor Swift except she's got a lot of money and she sings.
If you're measuring it as "how many people own superyachts" that's probably different from how most people want to measure "how well is the planet being run".
> And she's probably more efficient in spending it than the practical alternatives.
Why? This seems like an odd statement. Why is a singer more efficient at doing this than a team of analysts?
> Yes to all of the above. I assume.
I have to point out that you are likely looking at the world in a drastically different way to most.
You think that
1. We should be pushing for more superyachts, as an immediate measure of efficient allocation of resources
2. Taylor Swift is being rewarded for efficient allocation of capital and not her songwriting, singing, etc.
3. Taylor Swift, who has been singing for many years at lower amounts of wealth, would stop if her fortune dropped and she had to release songs in order to gain more wealth
4. Taylor Swift is making music because there is something she wishes to purchase that she is saving up for. She does not wish to make music, and is putting up with it to finally afford something.
I think most people believe that musicians who are extremely popular for their music would continue to make music if they could live an extremely lavish lifestyle without a care in the world for money but their net worth didn't increase. I think that most people would prefer some measure of how well things are going that look at their own life, or how many people have food.