I sympathise with how you feel OT. I read recently that 1% of the world's population owns 90% of the wealth, in other words for every $10, 1 person owns 9, and 9 others share $1 between them. Shocking or what?
There is another way to look at it however. Many people get wealthy by building businesses and in the process employ lots of people, involve many others indirectly, create imports and exports, generate taxes etc. In other words, a lot of individuals as well as the economy in general benefit from their efforts, including charitable institutions as it happens. There are many examples of philantropists who have used their money to set up foundations designed to help others. Bill Gates has just done so I believe. Although it's seldom done for altruistic motives, businesses are often re-located in developing countries and regardless of why they are there they create employment and the other spin-off benefits I've already mentioned. The wages may be ridiculously low, bordering on the exploitative, but in time there is a trickledown effect and indigenous businesses at whatever level get started and you are on the way to building a new economy.
Similarly most modern economies are based on consumer spending and any faltering in levels of activity will lead to a slump, creating unemployment etc. It's considered appropriate to reward financially those who have done well, which inspires others to clamber up the slippery ladder to success themselves. All this argues that obscene or not we should continue to aspire to being able to buy the paintings! What do you think?