Hope this gets upvoted enough to salvage people's views on this incident.
Oh is it? really?
In the real world (not the fantasy land of trickle-down economics), money that is saved in stocks, bonds and bank accounts is NOT immediately put to use by companies, banks or governments.
Banks have done a terrible job putting the money given to them by the government and the Federal Reserve to work. Small business lending dried up and has taken years to recover, despite all the efforts to convince banks to do otherwise.
The government did a notoriously bad job of putting the stimulus spending money to work.
As for businesses, hiring has been slow, wages stagnant and investment weak for years, despite an excess of cash (profits).
Almost nothing has been done to stimulate demand, much has been done to stimulate supply.
So, arguments about "hoarding" have not only economic basis, they have a basis in fact as well.
Granted, on those grounds, Sean Parker should be lauded for putting some of his money to work.
The war on straw wages on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayman_islands#Taxation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven
Bonus points if you know unemployment benefits are subject to income tax in America.
So all that cash under my grandfather's mattress is being put to use?
How is that any of anyone's business but his?
The interesting thing in this case is that Parker himself admits it: "Finally, you mention that what we did was 'extravagant' yet none of the usual tasteless crap that rich people do at their weddings was present here — no ice sculptures, no caviar, no pop stars hired to sing their hits songs, etc. This is why your article and so many other articles have been so deeply offensive."
The reason people would find spending $4.5 million on ice sculptures (for example) offensive or tasteless is that a huge amount of human time and effort would be expended on something completely temporary, with nothing to show for it. The opportunity cost is that all that effort could have been spent on something with lasting value. Parker's spending is therefore equally tasteless.
I should say that I am not judging Parker here. A wedding is a big deal, the amount of money we are talking about here is not all that huge, and Parker seems to have some consciousness about his spending. I am, though, defending the right of others to judge Parker. Mild social criticism---not tar-and-feathering---for extravagant spending, and social praise for positive spending, is good for society as a whole.
An architect builds houses that the wind will erode away over the next 500 years.
How permanent does something need to be to make the creation of it worthwhile?
How much of the money we spend day-to-day actually fits this criteria?
I buy food that I pass a day later, I watch TV that benefits nobody, and I type on a keyboard to make software, that, while valued by others, isn't exactly art or anything (like the bridge in Sean Parker's wedding, it is useful for a time, and will eventually be discarded when it is no longer wanted).
He used public land. He made it public.
Taking advantage of government services available to everyone does not preclude one from expecting the usual degree of privacy and respect we accord to our fellow citizens.
"I will say, against my better instinct to tell you, that we
spent roughly $4.5 million on prepping the site and big part of
that was restoring the forest floor (I should say, covering the
forest floor with plants) since it had been paved over in black
asphalt or cleared by bulldozers before we ever laid eyes on the
campground."
Two of the most expensive weddings, ($200K+), I've been invite to or a groomsman in, both ended in divorce within 2 years.