7 ms·

Why is it awful? It would certainly benefit many people if the fantastically wealthy were prevented from engaging in so much wasteful conspicuous consumption,

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.
  - slowhand09 8y ago
    Calling http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html Harrison Bergeron
  - kbutler 8y ago
    18-hole golf course for sale: $3,700,000 https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/922-Crazy-Horse-Rd-Hutchinson-KS/12143363/ https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/922-Crazy-Horse-Rd-Hutchinso... That's a pretty low threshold for "too much wealth".
- 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,

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.
- slowhand09 8y ago
  Calling http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html Harrison Bergeron
- kbutler 8y ago
  18-hole golf course for sale: $3,700,000 https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/922-Crazy-Horse-Rd-Hutchinson-KS/12143363/ https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/922-Crazy-Horse-Rd-Hutchinso... That's a pretty low threshold for "too much wealth".
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,