You think of money as a way to buy things. Others think of it for what it really is - a way to gain influence and control.

Sure, but wanting influence and control is somewhat the opposite of the desire for a leisurely life.

I strongly disagree with the premise. I can’t think of any industrial titans who retired to leisure. Those who tried or were forced into it seemed to die shortly after.

Henry Ford perhaps came closest with 20 years of only “unofficial” control of the company he founded.

Psychosis is still an appropriate term for people who want to gain influence and control.

That would make the diagnosis so common as to be meaningless.

Just because a large number of people seek control, power, and influence does not make it a worthy venture. It is a terrible trait.

What if you want to gain influence and control in order to make a positive impact on the world?

People who wish to gain influence in order to make a positive impact typically aren't trying to make a positive difference, they're trying to gain notoriety . You can make a positive impact in the world without gaining influence.

What do you mean, there's nothing that you could possibly want that costs that much? What about funding large-scale medical or scientific research, or a private space program, or mass vaccination campaigns in poverty-stricken areas ala Gates Foundation? These kinds of goals are extremely capital intensive, and if you can fund it entirely by yourself, you won't have to answer to shareholders who seek an immediate profit, or be forced to play politics instead of focusing on your mission.

You might enjoy the book 'How Much Is Enough?' by Robert Skidelsky and Edward Skidelsky

The underlying problem with all of this is that money is a poorly designed mechanism for (1) exchange of services (almost all goods are the result of services) between people (2) apportioning of natural resources which really belong to no one in particular

I'm curious what you see as a better mechanism for exchanging services.

Killing everyone! /s