That's why there are hundreds of EPA superfund cleanup sites, no-one has to pay, just bail out of town and keep the profits.
The unfathomable wealth she squandered on bullshit throughout her mostly-anonymous lifetime of luxury... could have supported hundreds of other 20th century families. As specific example, she maintained a Santa Barbara mansion, for decades, without ever visiting the property.
That she was given it all from her father creating a superfund site... probably helps explain much of her reclusiveness [that and loss of sister at a young adult age].
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Empty-Mansions-Mysterious-Huguette-Sp...
Unless she literally burned the money in a pile in her back yard, then that's what spending does, put the money in other peoples hands.
She spent the money on things with no lasting value but she spent the money.
Except the labor is entirely voluntary. The people performing the labor had the option of saying "no."
> but other people's time and effort.
In exchange for money so nothing was wasted other than the potential value of the money to the spender.
Critically the notion that "it _could_ have supported hundreds of families" is wrong. The money obviously _did_ support those families.
I recommend reading The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes. Chapter 10 discusses this in some detail. (While reading, keep in mind that John Maynard Keynes is not correct.)
What cost? Labor is time traded for money. If they didn't do this job they would have to do another.
> If they had received just the money, without paying the labour cost, they would've been better off.
By what metric? Labor must be practiced and the hours of time devoted to it increases ones skill. "Better off" in that they could have done nothing and got money anyways, but if that wasn't a realistic option, then it's pointless to consider it.
> I recommend reading The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes
Did he ever work for a living?
Or done another job and had more money (see your previous paragraph). Unless you think people only work when they immediately need the money, in which case,
> the labor is entirely voluntary
is incorrect. Economists disagree on many of these points, and each viewpoint ends up with a mostly-consistent model of economics, but jumping between viewpoints the way you are doing is not valid. Ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet: your conclusion is certainly nothing I've ever seen an economist propose.
> Did he ever work for a living?
Wikipedia's right there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes#Career But I didn't cite him because he agrees with me. I cited him because he's the economist who's come closest to saying what you're saying. Spoilers:
> If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is.
The rest of the chapter explains how I've quoted him out of context, and he would laugh at you if you seriously proposed doing this.