As someone who makes most of his money from non-profit organizations, I can say that "competitive donating" is a sport which many of the older rich people will play. The ones who play hardest are typically near the end of their rope and worried that they won't be remembered fondly or won't get into heaven (see: the catholic church).

It was so much simpler when the church could just sell indulgences...

The free market provides more efficient price discovery for indulgences

Definitely, but that has nothing to do with the financial system. Actually the current financial system is the only known system able to create fortunes big enough that someone is able to donate anything; and the system enables it, contrary to others that are designed only with citizens in mind. Another problem is that other systems are designed, the one we have now is more or less natural - people will always trade unless they can get everything for free, which is not possible at the moment and probably won't be for the next 50 years at least. A lot of value would be lost if people didn't use money; this value might seem low per transaction, but it's a lot on a country/global scale.

>the current financial system is the only known system able to create fortunes big enough that someone is able to donate anything

You mean the current financial system where concentrated wealth yields concentrated power to effect change?

And almost everyone is born into a situation where their wealth & power is insignificant compared to the rare individual who has been the beneficiary of the feature where rapidly or not there is a net flow concentrating resources disproportionately toward those already wealthy & powerful?

Nominally, the traditional result is that the few having most concentrated wealth are the ones capable of effecting the changes they desire, with most everyone else serving these masters in one way or another. With the servant class being highly restricted in their ability to develop personal wealth of their own, much less direct major resources toward independently progressive positive objectives.

I must assume that the current financial system is the same one as that of Genghis Khan.

So naturally there is a long precedent.

Anyway, back on topic not every single artist or engineer serves this type of master, just most of them.

Some create value or enhance wealth, some devalue or destroy, what else is new?

>We could invest in lofty ideas to alleviate starving...

This wise investment was fortunately made starting at just the most opportune time in human history, and has compounded itself remarkably in only a few generations. Many approaches are now well known, only requiring a properly-scalable "seed" committment for their relative degrees of success to be proven on the larger scale.

I guess we need to invest in lofty equitable distribution of resources, especially essential survival commodities.

Creating or spreading surplus value can require a lot of work, but those at the top of the food chain don't really have to do it if they don't feel like it since wealth is flowing their way already.

Plus there is just so much wealth & plenty already which is not having a fraction of the positive effect it could be making.

Sorry but right now I don't have time for full reply. Consider that many problems you listed are caused by regulation (that supports corporations and their interests), not the financial system itself. The same system is used elsewhere with better results.

Two thoughts: I don't see a viable way to change what society views as prestigious and 'cool'.

I can see the argument that the amounts spent on works of art are excessive, but it seems like we should at least keep in mind that this does benefit society by supporting the creation of great art.