8 ms·

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

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.
        TomVDB 8y ago
        You're combining numbers that should be used in isolation. In a hypothetical world where the richest are only 10x richer than the other across the world, your $712 vs $62k data comparison simply doesn't exist. Ultimately, my beef is with you making a straw man argument.
        kbutler 8y ago
        Within one working life, by investing 10% of income, I can accumulate wealth of over 100 times annual income while someone who spends 100% of income ends up with 0 wealth. What part of this are you going to make illegal? Individual choices, even with absolutely equal starting conditions, yield unequal outcomes.
  - spurcell93 8y ago
    I'm not sure exactly what GP meant, but I took the spirit of the post as more "I wish there wasn't so much wealth inequality that ONE person could own a superyacht. I have no problem with yachts in and of themselves." Edit: sibling since posted
    - kbutler 8y ago
      So, it's OK for a group of, say 20 people to have enough disposable wealth to pool together to fund the amortized annual expense of buying and maintaining a superyacht. But it's not OK for one individual to invest that money for 20 years and then buy it.
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        You're still not getting it. It's not about how many X owners it takes to pool the money together to buy something obscenely expensive and wasteful. It's about the wealth disparity that makes it possible for just a few people to do something like that, especially given that the wealth disparity is based on rent-seeking (and frequently borderline-fraudulent) behaviors.
        kbutler 8y ago
        My preferred world is everybody doing better, even if some can afford things that are "obscenely expensive" (good for them!), because I think absolute well-being is more important than relative well-being. How about a world where everyone has basic needs met, but a few can afford a large yacht? Or a world where everyone can afford a yacht club membership, but a few people can afford TWO large yachts? jonnycomputer wrote "In my preferred world, no single person would be able to afford a large yacht." I'll say it again: "What an awful attitude." It just proposes taking away from people who have what he thinks is too much, without any benefit stated or implied for anyone else. Inequality, rent-seeking, and now fraud are all topics that have been added later.
        jonnycomputer 8y ago
  - jonnycomputer 8y ago
    spurcell has interpreted me accurately.
  - alephx 8y ago
    Totally agree, the problem with that kind of thinking is that it ignores the creation of wealth. A world without superyachts would probably be a world where they did not exist i.e. two hundred years ago (guess). Wealth is always distributed unequally due to nature, it is a random and chaotic world. The difference from two hundred years ago is that the accumulated wealth of the world now enables superyachts to exist. From the factory and the machines that make a screw, to the metal panes, the engine etc... All that machinery ends up indirectly benefiting most of the population who are now able to buy other goods which were produced thanks to the accumulated wealth (machinery, technology, resources, knowledge) that made superyachts possible. It is a symbol of conspicuous consumption, but also a symbol of everything that made it possible and in the process raised the standards of living of a whole lot of people.
    - jonnycomputer 8y ago
      "Wealth is always distributed unequally due to nature" No. Wealth is a social fact, not a natural fact. It is the consequence of policy choices. And most of the stuff you go on about is really just unsubstantiated nonsense. You are actually claiming that the existence of ultra-billionaires as consumers of luxury goods leads to technological innovation.
      - kbutler 8y ago
        I'd like to mention SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Tesla. Regarding the policy choices: Joe and I have equal income. Joe spends his full income every year. I invest 50% of my income. After 40 years of average stock market returns, I have accumulated 1000 times my annual income as wealth. What policy choices created this wealth disparity? Joe and I both retire. How much of my wealth do I need to give to Joe?
        alephx 8y ago
        Oooh, those companies will build the superyachts of the future! Or alternatively we create a policy that: 1) no superspacecrafts are allowed. Not one 2) no individual owners are allowed? Oh no what if the Walton's bought their own? Now that would be UNFAIR 3) No fun is allowed aboard the spacecraft, it must only be used for the common good in a strictly utilitarian sense. 4) Joe gets half Cheers,
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

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.
        TomVDB 8y ago
        You're combining numbers that should be used in isolation. In a hypothetical world where the richest are only 10x richer than the other across the world, your $712 vs $62k data comparison simply doesn't exist. Ultimately, my beef is with you making a straw man argument.
        kbutler 8y ago
        Within one working life, by investing 10% of income, I can accumulate wealth of over 100 times annual income while someone who spends 100% of income ends up with 0 wealth. What part of this are you going to make illegal? Individual choices, even with absolutely equal starting conditions, yield unequal outcomes.
- spurcell93 8y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what GP meant, but I took the spirit of the post as more "I wish there wasn't so much wealth inequality that ONE person could own a superyacht. I have no problem with yachts in and of themselves." Edit: sibling since posted
  - kbutler 8y ago
    So, it's OK for a group of, say 20 people to have enough disposable wealth to pool together to fund the amortized annual expense of buying and maintaining a superyacht. But it's not OK for one individual to invest that money for 20 years and then buy it.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      You're still not getting it. It's not about how many X owners it takes to pool the money together to buy something obscenely expensive and wasteful. It's about the wealth disparity that makes it possible for just a few people to do something like that, especially given that the wealth disparity is based on rent-seeking (and frequently borderline-fraudulent) behaviors.
      - kbutler 8y ago
        My preferred world is everybody doing better, even if some can afford things that are "obscenely expensive" (good for them!), because I think absolute well-being is more important than relative well-being. How about a world where everyone has basic needs met, but a few can afford a large yacht? Or a world where everyone can afford a yacht club membership, but a few people can afford TWO large yachts? jonnycomputer wrote "In my preferred world, no single person would be able to afford a large yacht." I'll say it again: "What an awful attitude." It just proposes taking away from people who have what he thinks is too much, without any benefit stated or implied for anyone else. Inequality, rent-seeking, and now fraud are all topics that have been added later.
        jonnycomputer 8y ago
- jonnycomputer 8y ago
  spurcell has interpreted me accurately.
- alephx 8y ago
  Totally agree, the problem with that kind of thinking is that it ignores the creation of wealth. A world without superyachts would probably be a world where they did not exist i.e. two hundred years ago (guess). Wealth is always distributed unequally due to nature, it is a random and chaotic world. The difference from two hundred years ago is that the accumulated wealth of the world now enables superyachts to exist. From the factory and the machines that make a screw, to the metal panes, the engine etc... All that machinery ends up indirectly benefiting most of the population who are now able to buy other goods which were produced thanks to the accumulated wealth (machinery, technology, resources, knowledge) that made superyachts possible. It is a symbol of conspicuous consumption, but also a symbol of everything that made it possible and in the process raised the standards of living of a whole lot of people.
  - jonnycomputer 8y ago
    "Wealth is always distributed unequally due to nature" No. Wealth is a social fact, not a natural fact. It is the consequence of policy choices. And most of the stuff you go on about is really just unsubstantiated nonsense. You are actually claiming that the existence of ultra-billionaires as consumers of luxury goods leads to technological innovation.
    - kbutler 8y ago
      I'd like to mention SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Tesla. Regarding the policy choices: Joe and I have equal income. Joe spends his full income every year. I invest 50% of my income. After 40 years of average stock market returns, I have accumulated 1000 times my annual income as wealth. What policy choices created this wealth disparity? Joe and I both retire. How much of my wealth do I need to give to Joe?
      - alephx 8y ago
        Oooh, those companies will build the superyachts of the future! Or alternatively we create a policy that: 1) no superspacecrafts are allowed. Not one 2) no individual owners are allowed? Oh no what if the Walton's bought their own? Now that would be UNFAIR 3) No fun is allowed aboard the spacecraft, it must only be used for the common good in a strictly utilitarian sense. 4) Joe gets half Cheers,

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