8 ms·

Edited: In my preferred world, no single person would be able to afford a large yacht. However, I have no problem with yachts per se. Yacht enthusiasts could j

Edited: In my preferred world, no single person would be able to afford a large yacht. However, I have no problem with yachts per se. Yacht enthusiasts could join cooperatives, for example. Just like I think its silly that individuals can be so wealthy that they can afford massive private golf courses, but think that people who want to play golf should be able to join a golf club. “But for the guy who owns the Eclipse [Roman Abramovich, a Russian oligarch], that’s not the point. He’s not chartering that thing out. It has a submarine and a missile detection system. See, the power of owning a magnificent yacht like that is in how you’re telling the world that you’re beyond buying and selling. You have more money than there is money to have. You’ve transcended. There are no frontiers left for you on dry land. I mean, true peace is only at sea.”

kbutler 8y ago
What an awful attitude. Not seeking to benefit anyone, just prevent anyone from being fantastically well off, while endorsing those who are merely incredibly well off.
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  Why is it awful? It would certainly benefit many people if the fantastically wealthy were prevented from engaging in so much wasteful conspicuous consumption, since then they'd at least have to find marginally more productive things to do with their money.
  - kbutler 8y ago
    jonnycomputer didn't propose redirecting that wealth or increasing the cost for redistribution (e.g., a consumption tax), just that only "yacht enthusiast cooperatives" would be able to afford them. It's a crabs-in-a-bucket mentality that says it's OK to be in the ultra-rich club that can wastefully spend $mega for a yacht club membership, but not $mega++ to buy it. And specifically "large yacht" - so conspicuous consumption is OK, but not beyond his personal threshold. You could say the same thing at every level: In my preferred world, no one would be able to afford a vacation home, only time-shares. Or a private automobile, only ride-shares.
    - jonnycomputer 8y ago
      my fault for not being clearer. in my preferred world, no-one would be so rich they could afford to own and maintain 250+ ft yachts on their own. however, i am not averse to people just being rich enough to join clubs that can jointly afford such a thing. i am also averse to individuals being rich enough to have their own full-scale private golf courses; but am not averse to people playing games of golf. >“But for the guy who owns the Eclipse [Roman Abramovich, a Russian oligarch], that’s not the point. He’s not chartering that thing out. It has a submarine and a missile detection system. See, the power of owning a magnificent yacht like that is in how you’re telling the world that you’re beyond buying and selling. You have more money than there is money to have. You’ve transcended. There are no frontiers left for you on dry land. I mean, true peace is only at sea.”
      - kbutler 8y ago
        I just don't get the perspective that says, it's OK for someone to be 10 times as wealthy as I am, but no one should be 100 times as wealthy as I am, but it's OK for me to be 1000 times as wealthy as some other people.
        TomVDB 8y ago
        > ... but it's OK for me to be 1000 times as wealthy as some other people. Can you point me to the place where we write that? Because I certainly don't see it. I'm speculating, but the world he imagines is one where the wealth of those who are 10x and up richer don't exist because feedback mechanisms (e.g. tax) exist to use that excess wealth to help those who are now 1000x poorer.
        kbutler 8y ago
        https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/worlds-richest-and-poorest-countries https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/worlds-riche... Central African Republic, $712, US average $62,000. There's a 100x disparity in averages. You don't get shared yacht enthusiast clubs at $62,000/year. High earners distort this a lot, and if you actually save a large percentage of your income in two-earner, high-earning households, you will accumulate a lot of wealth. Should they not be able to save it? Not be able to spend it after they've saved it? Hence the "crabs in a bucket" mentality. It's OK for me to be way richer than others, but nobody can be way richer than me.
- ip26 8y ago
  I think your parent mostly has a problem with excludability exercised at the extremes, e.g. sprawling private golf course that is empty except for the five days a year the owner visits. I can sympathize, with goods I'm not that concerned but the thought of (for example) a small group of people locking up the world's limited amount of beachfront, riverfront, and lakefront for themselves seems deeply wrong.
  - kbutler 8y ago
    Note that excludability was added as a late edit. The original comment just said something like "In my preferred world, no single person would be able to afford a large yacht, but yacht enthusiast clubs could own one." I agree on the excludability issue, but I'm not sure where it ends. I'd also add beautiful mountain valleys, etc. Forests? Interesting deserts? Waterfalls? Intellectual techniques? (at least patents have limited time) Cultural stories? cultural clothing? Foods? I'm not sure how to balance "my family earned money/had power a long time ago, so I can exclude anyone else from this forever" with "I want to work hard and save to provide for my family". I wonder if there will need to be a change in what can be passed on to future generations (we no longer allow political power to be inherited, does it make sense for economic power?). Can eminent domain play a role in the public re-acquiring assets? Both of those have really scary implications, though...
- jonnycomputer 8y ago
  Lets put it this way. A superyacht to massage the ego of oligarch is around $275 million with about 10% of that yearly for upkeep. How much would it cost to replace the lead pipes in Flint, Michigan? Replacing lead pipes would be about $7500 per home. So at the cost of one man's ego, we could replace the lead pipes in 36,667 homes in Flint, Michigan. Which is the greater loss of social welfare: the lost enjoyment of a yacht or clean safe water for tens of thousands of children?
  - crowdpleaser 8y ago
    If we didn't let people use money to stroke their ego / indulge themselves, how much of an incentive do people have to produce wealth? If I couldn't trade money for interesting machines, I would take an easier job and contribute less to the world. I'm not alone in this, but the status quo that lets me keep the majority of my earnings is what encouraged me to better myself and become valuable. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to replace the pipes in Flint, I'm just saying that we have more good ideas than we have other people's money. Sure, replace the pipes in Flint but don't do it in a way that means replaced pipes are the last pound of flesh we're ever going to get out the wealthy. Beyond that, it's important to build limits into policy - remember the adage that 8 out of 9 people enjoy gang bangs. Just because something makes more people better off doesn't mean we can discount the costs to those who are made worse off.
    - kolleykibber 8y ago
      What would you do when AI gives you the opportunity to do whatever you want without scrabbling for the dollar? When the incentive to produce wealth is gone, would you work years of your life to purchase things to impress people who have no care for you?
      - crowdpleaser 8y ago
        I'd explore the world on the machines I own and will eventually own.
    - jonnycomputer 8y ago
protomyth 8y ago
And that attitude got us a luxury sales tax in the 90's that destroyed a lot of highly paid workers building luxury yachts. A lot of craftsman-style jobs rely on rich folks. A lot of manufacturing jobs rely on rich folks. Private golf courses need people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1993/07/16/how-to-sink-an-industry-and-not-soak-the-rich/08ea5310-4a4b-4674-ab88-fad8c42cf55b/?utm_term=.6cbe1c746431 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1993/07/16/h...
- justin66 8y ago
  This was quite a popular media thing among conservatives who were torqued about the evils of the 10% luxury tax in the early nineties. It was always about the yachts and yacht industry, too. It was the opposite of persuasive because in reference to the luxury tax, they were always going on about the freaking yachts. I imagine in the end, it did little more than make most normal people conscious of how little they cared about the yacht industry. The way the repeated messaging was effective in getting everybody talking about the same (ridiculous) thing was an early taste of what was to come in right-wing media. The yacht costs $2,995,000, but, thanks to the current luxury tax that kicks in at $100,000, you have to fork over another $289,500. Rich people aren't happy about paying this extra money. Even if they can afford it, they think it's unfair. And in some cases, they're refusing to pay it -- simply by refusing to buy new boats and planes. Funny stuff.
  - protomyth 8y ago
    I guess the people who were fired are none of you concern? So, someone making a good living making nice things is just done.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      I feel sorry for the tens of people who lost their jobs because we no longer make luxury yachts in the U.S. Oh wait...it turns out we make more luxury yachts in the US now then we did when the 25-year old article you cited was published.
    - 8y ago

kbutler 8y ago

What an awful attitude. Not seeking to benefit anyone, just prevent anyone from being fantastically well off, while endorsing those who are merely incredibly well off.

CharlesColeman 8y ago
Why is it awful? It would certainly benefit many people if the fantastically wealthy were prevented from engaging in so much wasteful conspicuous consumption, since then they'd at least have to find marginally more productive things to do with their money.
- kbutler 8y ago
  jonnycomputer didn't propose redirecting that wealth or increasing the cost for redistribution (e.g., a consumption tax), just that only "yacht enthusiast cooperatives" would be able to afford them. It's a crabs-in-a-bucket mentality that says it's OK to be in the ultra-rich club that can wastefully spend $mega for a yacht club membership, but not $mega++ to buy it. And specifically "large yacht" - so conspicuous consumption is OK, but not beyond his personal threshold. You could say the same thing at every level: In my preferred world, no one would be able to afford a vacation home, only time-shares. Or a private automobile, only ride-shares.
  - jonnycomputer 8y ago
    my fault for not being clearer. in my preferred world, no-one would be so rich they could afford to own and maintain 250+ ft yachts on their own. however, i am not averse to people just being rich enough to join clubs that can jointly afford such a thing. i am also averse to individuals being rich enough to have their own full-scale private golf courses; but am not averse to people playing games of golf. >“But for the guy who owns the Eclipse [Roman Abramovich, a Russian oligarch], that’s not the point. He’s not chartering that thing out. It has a submarine and a missile detection system. See, the power of owning a magnificent yacht like that is in how you’re telling the world that you’re beyond buying and selling. You have more money than there is money to have. You’ve transcended. There are no frontiers left for you on dry land. I mean, true peace is only at sea.”
    - kbutler 8y ago
      I just don't get the perspective that says, it's OK for someone to be 10 times as wealthy as I am, but no one should be 100 times as wealthy as I am, but it's OK for me to be 1000 times as wealthy as some other people.
      - TomVDB 8y ago
        > ... but it's OK for me to be 1000 times as wealthy as some other people. Can you point me to the place where we write that? Because I certainly don't see it. I'm speculating, but the world he imagines is one where the wealth of those who are 10x and up richer don't exist because feedback mechanisms (e.g. tax) exist to use that excess wealth to help those who are now 1000x poorer.
        kbutler 8y ago
        https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/worlds-richest-and-poorest-countries https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/worlds-riche... Central African Republic, $712, US average $62,000. There's a 100x disparity in averages. You don't get shared yacht enthusiast clubs at $62,000/year. High earners distort this a lot, and if you actually save a large percentage of your income in two-earner, high-earning households, you will accumulate a lot of wealth. Should they not be able to save it? Not be able to spend it after they've saved it? Hence the "crabs in a bucket" mentality. It's OK for me to be way richer than others, but nobody can be way richer than me.
ip26 8y ago
I think your parent mostly has a problem with excludability exercised at the extremes, e.g. sprawling private golf course that is empty except for the five days a year the owner visits. I can sympathize, with goods I'm not that concerned but the thought of (for example) a small group of people locking up the world's limited amount of beachfront, riverfront, and lakefront for themselves seems deeply wrong.
- kbutler 8y ago
  Note that excludability was added as a late edit. The original comment just said something like "In my preferred world, no single person would be able to afford a large yacht, but yacht enthusiast clubs could own one." I agree on the excludability issue, but I'm not sure where it ends. I'd also add beautiful mountain valleys, etc. Forests? Interesting deserts? Waterfalls? Intellectual techniques? (at least patents have limited time) Cultural stories? cultural clothing? Foods? I'm not sure how to balance "my family earned money/had power a long time ago, so I can exclude anyone else from this forever" with "I want to work hard and save to provide for my family". I wonder if there will need to be a change in what can be passed on to future generations (we no longer allow political power to be inherited, does it make sense for economic power?). Can eminent domain play a role in the public re-acquiring assets? Both of those have really scary implications, though...
jonnycomputer 8y ago
Lets put it this way. A superyacht to massage the ego of oligarch is around $275 million with about 10% of that yearly for upkeep. How much would it cost to replace the lead pipes in Flint, Michigan? Replacing lead pipes would be about $7500 per home. So at the cost of one man's ego, we could replace the lead pipes in 36,667 homes in Flint, Michigan. Which is the greater loss of social welfare: the lost enjoyment of a yacht or clean safe water for tens of thousands of children?
- crowdpleaser 8y ago
  If we didn't let people use money to stroke their ego / indulge themselves, how much of an incentive do people have to produce wealth? If I couldn't trade money for interesting machines, I would take an easier job and contribute less to the world. I'm not alone in this, but the status quo that lets me keep the majority of my earnings is what encouraged me to better myself and become valuable. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to replace the pipes in Flint, I'm just saying that we have more good ideas than we have other people's money. Sure, replace the pipes in Flint but don't do it in a way that means replaced pipes are the last pound of flesh we're ever going to get out the wealthy. Beyond that, it's important to build limits into policy - remember the adage that 8 out of 9 people enjoy gang bangs. Just because something makes more people better off doesn't mean we can discount the costs to those who are made worse off.
  - kolleykibber 8y ago
    What would you do when AI gives you the opportunity to do whatever you want without scrabbling for the dollar? When the incentive to produce wealth is gone, would you work years of your life to purchase things to impress people who have no care for you?
    - crowdpleaser 8y ago
      I'd explore the world on the machines I own and will eventually own.
  - jonnycomputer 8y ago

protomyth 8y ago

And that attitude got us a luxury sales tax in the 90's that destroyed a lot of highly paid workers building luxury yachts. A lot of craftsman-style jobs rely on rich folks. A lot of manufacturing jobs rely on rich folks. Private golf courses need people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1993/07/16/how-to-sink-an-industry-and-not-soak-the-rich/08ea5310-4a4b-4674-ab88-fad8c42cf55b/?utm_term=.6cbe1c746431 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1993/07/16/h...

justin66 8y ago
This was quite a popular media thing among conservatives who were torqued about the evils of the 10% luxury tax in the early nineties. It was always about the yachts and yacht industry, too. It was the opposite of persuasive because in reference to the luxury tax, they were always going on about the freaking yachts. I imagine in the end, it did little more than make most normal people conscious of how little they cared about the yacht industry. The way the repeated messaging was effective in getting everybody talking about the same (ridiculous) thing was an early taste of what was to come in right-wing media. The yacht costs $2,995,000, but, thanks to the current luxury tax that kicks in at $100,000, you have to fork over another $289,500. Rich people aren't happy about paying this extra money. Even if they can afford it, they think it's unfair. And in some cases, they're refusing to pay it -- simply by refusing to buy new boats and planes. Funny stuff.
- protomyth 8y ago
  I guess the people who were fired are none of you concern? So, someone making a good living making nice things is just done.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    I feel sorry for the tens of people who lost their jobs because we no longer make luxury yachts in the U.S. Oh wait...it turns out we make more luxury yachts in the US now then we did when the 25-year old article you cited was published.
  - 8y ago