Nothing was hoarded. IKEA is a private company, and the founder likely held a lot of that ownership. He didn't simply grab people's cash and hide it in a box. To turn that ownership value into cash so he would not "hoard so much" would be to turn ownership (and hence direction) of IKEA over to others.
To sell ownership would mean others would turn cash into ownership, so there's really no net gain/loss in terms of "hoarding," only a change in assets.
He decided to keep IKEA independent. His value represents the value IKEA provides to others and is not taking away from society.
By defintion, more than you need is hoarding. He could have distributed (read: invested via donations and grants) more sooner. Why wait til death? Unless, there's some personal "quirk" (e.g., hoarding) prevented him from doing so?
As they say, ya can't take it with you. Why not go with your bag lighter? Why not go you're leaving with seeds planted and growing? Why risk some unforseen legal snafu? Etc.
>He could have distributed (read: invested via donations and grants) more sooner.
The only way he could have done that is to sell the company, and using your definition, as soon as the company was worth more than he needed personally, he would have to sell it to not be a hoarder.
I'm pretty sure in that case the company would never have grown to what it is, as there's ample studies showing that founders, who know a business, provide more growth than letting outsiders run a company, when averaged across all companies. I'd suspect this is the case for this person also.
So your plan would have resulted in less total worth provided to humanity.
And, as I pointed out above, the only way to realize that value is to sell ownership - so now you've removed some cash from someone else to get ownership, given that cash to this owner, for a net zero change in cash available for society, with a likely less value add over time. This is why these ideas do not work economically.
Warren Buffet is a good example of this - he was far better at allocating capital than most (perhaps anyone), and when he dies the world will see that worth transferred to charity. Had he constantly handed it over earlier to less efficient capital allocators, there would have been less growth, since others are likely far less capable than he was/is, and there would be less total for the planet.
Less capital growth? Perhaps. But I'm suggesting that capital isnt the only measurement?
How many live is Buffet saving from X while his capital is locked up in traditional growth? Big efforts take time. Most of the low hanging fruit is gone. Starting sooner beats starting later.
Again, a Buffet holding stock is not locking up any capital. For him to sell it, realizing that capital, requires someone trading their capital for the stock. The total stock and total capital remains unchanged.
If an apple is worth a dollar, you cannot transmute the apple into a dollar. You can trade it for one, but there is still one apple and one dollar in the economy.
Stocks work the same. A rich person holding value in any item other than capital is not hoarding capital, any more than a person hoarding apples is hoarding capital.
Nothing was hoarded. IKEA is a private company, and the founder likely held a lot of that ownership. He didn't simply grab people's cash and hide it in a box. To turn that ownership value into cash so he would not "hoard so much" would be to turn ownership (and hence direction) of IKEA over to others.
To sell ownership would mean others would turn cash into ownership, so there's really no net gain/loss in terms of "hoarding," only a change in assets.
He decided to keep IKEA independent. His value represents the value IKEA provides to others and is not taking away from society.