3 ms·
It is still a waste in the sense that productive people spent their time building and maintaining a boat for the benefit of a few rich guys. It would represent
by bittercynic 9y ago
It is still a waste in the sense that productive people spent their time building and maintaining a boat for the benefit of a few rich guys. It would represent reduced waste if the money was instead spent to hire those productive people to build infrastructure for their own communities.
Not trying to argue that luxury goods are pure evil, but there is a degree of selfishness in having luxury goods for yourself when there are people who lack the basics.
- diggernet 9y agoSo you advocate firing all the hard working folks who designed, built, maintain, repair, clean, and operate that boat, and take care of the passengers? They they too will lack the basics, and the money you just protected from "waste" will need to be used to provide for them.
- bittercynic 9y agoNot advocating anything of the sort. Only saying it would be /even better/ if the people currently spending fortunes on yachts spent the money building libraries and the like instead.
- qntty 9y agoSomehow I don't think that's what she meant.
- Retra 9y agoNo, you pay them to do something else for someone else.