Perhaps he doesn't care about how much he consumes, but rather at how much he produces. It's not about what one is taking to the grave; it's about what one is leaving.
The guy's only 67 and actively involved in growing new businesses and philanthropy. Perhaps he sees personal extravagance as inefficient/no value and loves having as much financial leverage as possible to get done what he wants to get done.
Well, there are a couple different possibilities here. One would be for him to buy things for himself--this would shift consumption to luxury goods. Another would be to give them to his workers, which shifts consumption to everyday essentials (and, increasingly, middle class goods).
What he's done is shift money toward capital investment, which shifts consumption C from the present to (1+x)C consumption sometime in the future. I'm not sure that's a bad thing--it's all about the time discount rate you're using in evaluating the value of economic decisions.
Whose consumption is also relevant here, but a century from now the benefits of his forsaking consumption will be fairly diffused.
What would be admired? Buying a 100 foot yacht, 2 private jets, 3 vacation homes and a private brothel like many executives in the west? He can't take the money to the grave, so he should spend it all... on himself, frivolously?
Probably he is looking out for his family, or will donate a lot of money to charity.
I guess the point is that he doesn't care about the money. I don't think he's purposely denying himself things he could afford but doesn't buy so that he can add another 1000$ to his bank account.
If he didn't care about money then why wouldn't he distribute it to his employees in some sort of profit sharing? Noted he's a philanthropist, but he's also the 3rd richest so he's keeping a hell of a lot of the money. There's nothing noble here, just greed in a different form.
