5 ms·

I think the best current example of this is the ‘cancel billionaires’ writ large in the billionaire race to space. Yes wealth inequality is probably one of the

I think the best current example of this is the ‘cancel billionaires’ writ large in the billionaire race to space. Yes wealth inequality is probably one of the biggest issues of our generation. Yes it is probably unethical that people are able to amass such huge fortunes particularly in some examples less reflective of the current crop of tech billionaires through tax loopholes and the fact that if you have money its easier to get more money. Yes musk is a billionaire but almost all of his assets are tied up in company stock, so like how do you go about redistributing that? Also, why is the meme that if we still have world hunger we shouldn’t have a space program back again? As though the world isn’t large enough for us collectively to pursue more than one avenue of progress at once.

cycomanic 5y ago
The issue is not about a space program, the issue is that it's a space program that is largely redistributing wealth from the commons to rich billionaires, i.e. a significant portion of funding is coming from government, through contracts and/or subsidies. On top of that is that the billionaires are using their money to fly to space, instead of really changing the world for better, which they clearly good do. At the same time there is a significant portion of our community that idiolises these people and acts as if they are in fact changing the world for better.
- namdnay 5y ago
  > redistributing wealth from the commons to rich billionaires are these space programs really profitable for the billionaires in question? i was under the impression that they were sinking their time and money into them too, as more of a hobby than a money-maker
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    > are these space programs really profitable for the billionaires in question? They aren't. We have currently two billionaire hobby space programs. One is a pure hobby and doesn't do actual space yet (suborbital hops != orbit). The other one exists solely to open Mars for regular access and eventual colonization, in the process also opening up near-Earth space for general exploration and exploitation. If it succeeds, it'll create an unprecedented amount of lasting value for humanity in general. Really, complaining about billionaire space is one of the dumbest part of the current zeitgeist.
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      If you read the wikipedia page for SpaceX (which is as neutral as you are likely to get) you see that in the first 10 years of operation, SpaceX spend $1 billion, of which $200M were private investments (Musk $100M) and $400M came from NASA via progress payments on launch contracts, so yes SpaceX was primarily funded through government contracts. It doesn't really matter if they made a profit or not, the growth of SpaceX is largely build on government spending.
      - theonlybutlet 5y ago
        And the product of this investment will benefit all, it's not just some billionaire rollercoaster unlike others * cough * blue origin * cough *.
        cycomanic 5y ago
        How?
        theonlybutlet 5y ago
        In ways we are already seeing tangible benefits: supply missions and passenger missions to the ISS, Commercial and military satellite launches, Starlink. Future benefits this tech would potentially support: asteroid mining, colonising other planets. The other company I reference have not made a commercially viable rocket that will get you into orbit.
      - namdnay 5y ago
        To quote you: > largely redistributing wealth from the commons to rich billionaires Which means that you are saying that Musk is getting taxpayer money from SpaceX. This clearly isn't the case, he's sinking his own money into it too
        cycomanic 5y ago
        I'm not sure how you think investment works. He is not donating his money to SpaceX and it disappears. If the government contracts increase the value of SpaceX it is increasing his investment.
afarrell 5y ago
Also, if we want to end world hunger we will need to figure out how to build a highly efficient means of distributing perishable goods. Selling off all of Jeff Bezos' assets and then trying to use the proceeds to do that seems highly wasteful.
Ma8ee 5y ago
> all of his assets are tied up in company stock, so like how do you go about redistributing that? Something that was tried in Sweden in the eighties was Employee Funds [0]. In short, tax the companies and use the money to buy stock in the same. Put the stock in funds controlled by the employees, which, in practice meant the unions. I think the original proposal was meant as a way to softly introduce a true socialist society, where the means of production (the capital) eventually would be completely owned by the workers. The funds were never particularly popular outside the big labour union. Even the ruling Social Democrats that implemented the solution did it reluctantly after pressure from the unions. The funds was scrapped in the early nineties. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds
- robbiep 5y ago
  That works when a company is profitable, which it seems spacex isn’t; and as a musk style startup I (presume, with no evidence) that employees would have some stock. Perhaps.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  And then wait for an Enron style fraud to emerge and wipe out the employee’s assets? Why not invest in broad market index fund instead if cash is being spent? I would be pretty pissed if my compensation was being tied up in the risk of 1 company like that.
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    Not one fund per company. Just a few funds that owns a lot of companies. Also, it’s not clear how the proceeds of those funds would be distributed.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      This is all been tried before. It is the same as defined benefit pension funds with a board of trustees made up of union members. Anyway you cut it, if there is a board tasked with allocating a big pot of money, there will be corruption. So far the least corrupt method is a low cost broad market index fund. There are fewer people in the chain of decision making, hence less agency risk. Passive index funds do the job better than human investors with lower probabilities of corruption.

cycomanic 5y ago

The issue is not about a space program, the issue is that it's a space program that is largely redistributing wealth from the commons to rich billionaires, i.e. a significant portion of funding is coming from government, through contracts and/or subsidies. On top of that is that the billionaires are using their money to fly to space, instead of really changing the world for better, which they clearly good do. At the same time there is a significant portion of our community that idiolises these people and acts as if they are in fact changing the world for better.

namdnay 5y ago
> redistributing wealth from the commons to rich billionaires are these space programs really profitable for the billionaires in question? i was under the impression that they were sinking their time and money into them too, as more of a hobby than a money-maker
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > are these space programs really profitable for the billionaires in question? They aren't. We have currently two billionaire hobby space programs. One is a pure hobby and doesn't do actual space yet (suborbital hops != orbit). The other one exists solely to open Mars for regular access and eventual colonization, in the process also opening up near-Earth space for general exploration and exploitation. If it succeeds, it'll create an unprecedented amount of lasting value for humanity in general. Really, complaining about billionaire space is one of the dumbest part of the current zeitgeist.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    If you read the wikipedia page for SpaceX (which is as neutral as you are likely to get) you see that in the first 10 years of operation, SpaceX spend $1 billion, of which $200M were private investments (Musk $100M) and $400M came from NASA via progress payments on launch contracts, so yes SpaceX was primarily funded through government contracts. It doesn't really matter if they made a profit or not, the growth of SpaceX is largely build on government spending.
    - theonlybutlet 5y ago
      And the product of this investment will benefit all, it's not just some billionaire rollercoaster unlike others * cough * blue origin * cough *.
      - cycomanic 5y ago
        How?
        theonlybutlet 5y ago
        In ways we are already seeing tangible benefits: supply missions and passenger missions to the ISS, Commercial and military satellite launches, Starlink. Future benefits this tech would potentially support: asteroid mining, colonising other planets. The other company I reference have not made a commercially viable rocket that will get you into orbit.
    - namdnay 5y ago
      To quote you: > largely redistributing wealth from the commons to rich billionaires Which means that you are saying that Musk is getting taxpayer money from SpaceX. This clearly isn't the case, he's sinking his own money into it too
      - cycomanic 5y ago
        I'm not sure how you think investment works. He is not donating his money to SpaceX and it disappears. If the government contracts increase the value of SpaceX it is increasing his investment.

afarrell 5y ago

Also, if we want to end world hunger we will need to figure out how to build a highly efficient means of distributing perishable goods. Selling off all of Jeff Bezos' assets and then trying to use the proceeds to do that seems highly wasteful.

Ma8ee 5y ago

> all of his assets are tied up in company stock, so like how do you go about redistributing that? Something that was tried in Sweden in the eighties was Employee Funds [0]. In short, tax the companies and use the money to buy stock in the same. Put the stock in funds controlled by the employees, which, in practice meant the unions. I think the original proposal was meant as a way to softly introduce a true socialist society, where the means of production (the capital) eventually would be completely owned by the workers. The funds were never particularly popular outside the big labour union. Even the ruling Social Democrats that implemented the solution did it reluctantly after pressure from the unions. The funds was scrapped in the early nineties. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds

robbiep 5y ago
That works when a company is profitable, which it seems spacex isn’t; and as a musk style startup I (presume, with no evidence) that employees would have some stock. Perhaps.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
And then wait for an Enron style fraud to emerge and wipe out the employee’s assets? Why not invest in broad market index fund instead if cash is being spent? I would be pretty pissed if my compensation was being tied up in the risk of 1 company like that.
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  Not one fund per company. Just a few funds that owns a lot of companies. Also, it’s not clear how the proceeds of those funds would be distributed.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    This is all been tried before. It is the same as defined benefit pension funds with a board of trustees made up of union members. Anyway you cut it, if there is a board tasked with allocating a big pot of money, there will be corruption. So far the least corrupt method is a low cost broad market index fund. There are fewer people in the chain of decision making, hence less agency risk. Passive index funds do the job better than human investors with lower probabilities of corruption.