Why jump to that conclusion? The law is there to protect and provide remuneration when due diligence fails to uncover deliberate falsification of pertinent information. Omission of information doesn't necessarily constitute fraud unless that omission is in violation of rules and regulations that govern necessary reporting requirements. Corporate due diligence and consumer due diligence are not weighed the same. Consumers, with less at their disposal to perform due diligence have less to do in the way of proving fraud.
So Barry has an opinion that at some point a person has made enough money. He might also think that at some point a person has enough power. Or that a person has eaten enough. Or had enough to drink. Or had enough to smoke. Or that at some point, anyone but a really sick fuck finds satiation of their greed, gluttony, sloth, wrath, envy, lust, and pride. Who knew? Someone suggesting moderation is an ideal to strive for? Someone who believes greed is not actually good? Oh, that will surely drive the devils mad...
You didn't happen to check out the article on Adam Smith I linked, did you? I think you'd find it interesting.
I didn't, but I will... The dichotomy, or schism in the brain of the narcissistic capitalists today is that they know that power corrupts, but they don't believe that greed corrupts just as dramatically...
"Narcissistic capitalists", lol, is that an addition to the so-called ten theoretical types of capitalism? ; ) But greed is the corruption, is it not? I mean it in a sense as different from ambition. Maybe greed is like "pornography, I can't define it but I know it when I see it".