Two Inconvenient Theories

Recently a middle-period Picasso sold for $179,000,000, which raised the question: how much money is art worth? Adam Gopnik has proposed an interesting hypothesis. What art is worth depends on income disparity. The more really poor people you have and the more multi-billionaires, the more a Picasso will cost. 

Another theory is better established. That is the correlation between global warming (which causes climate change) and social instability.  This idea has been around for at least 15 years. For example, drought in Syria led to desperate farm families swarming into the cities and demanding help. The government attempted to suppress them, and the nation disintegrated. 

If I were a billionaire, I'd be putting my money into efforts to mitigate global warming. What the swanky class needs most is stability.  The slower change occurs, the more safely the hoity-toity can enjoy great wealth. When masses of people get hungry and thirsty, they rampage through the gated communities. (I doubt if Wall Street grasps this.)