It is possible for a billionaire to take part in space exploration out of selfish reasons.
And that selfish reason to be that they really, really want to take part in space exploration, because space is cool.
+7
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Or they want to take their fortunes to another place away from the rest of us plebs while the planet collapses because they are truly our superiors.
Space research could be important long-term, and governments have been neglecting it recently.
Very true, but, SpaceX is already doing a fine job of moving things along there. Bezos entering the fray too clearly states that he thinks it is a profit making opportunity, not altruism, since you don't need more than SpaceX unless you want to make money.
That might be taking it a bit far, competition being good for innovation among other things.
Replace "SpaceX" with "Comcast" and see if your assertion holds up.
Well. In a profit space maybe. But it’s more likely to result in price competition. But in a non-profit space I don’t see it.
what gave you the impression these companies were in space exploration not for profit?
Because there is no profit to be had until exploration starts actually bringing stuff back.
Maybe this will make sense. Cost reduction always has an incentive regardless of market structure, because any cost reduction directly translates to profit at the current price(or it produces an increased production of whatever the non-profit is doing at current total cost). For profit competitive industries do not have advantages over non-competitive industries on this angle*. The place where competition has an effect is in prices and quantity.
*A good example is Comcast et al, which are consistently working on cost reductions. But since there is no competition these cost reductions do not get translated to price reductions. That doesn't mean that you necessarily "see" those cost reductions. Comcast is a monopoly and so will restrict quantity in order to increase price as they see fit.
Space research could be important long-term, and governments have been neglecting it recently.
Very true, but, SpaceX is already doing a fine job of moving things along there. Bezos entering the fray too clearly states that he thinks it is a profit making opportunity, not altruism, since you don't need more than SpaceX unless you want to make money.
That might be taking it a bit far, competition being good for innovation among other things.
Replace "SpaceX" with "Comcast" and see if your assertion holds up.
Yes, but Bezos is trying to argue that he is serving some grand and noble public good with Blue Horizon, for which we should respect and honor him. Equivalent to Gates and his work with literacy and disease etc.
Building space rockets when NOONE is building space rockets and advancing the science is a good and noble thing, which you can sell as something virtuous. Because we need to push the tech forward enough to get governments going at it again.
SpaceX is not good because it builds and innovates with cheap reusable rockets. it is 'good' because noone else was doing that effectively. A second company entering the same space may show economic viablility, but it is not 'morally good', since if the activity is profitable it doesn't require an eccentric billionaire who can do whatever he wants to drive it along. A regular group of people can just raise money from the bank.
I find this to be a weird premise for a lot of reasons.
The first company to enter a specific market vertical isn't inherently good just because no one else was filling the need, and the second company isn't automatically greedy or barred from "moral" motivations just because they didn't get there first.
I can fill a need that no one else was filling because I know I can make bank doing it. I can enter an established market with noble intentions.
And I'd argue that if you go to a bank and ask for a loan because you want to start a rocketship company, unless you are already pretty fucking rich they'll tell you to go pound sand.
Yes, but the only argument of merit for the 'extreme wealth of billionaires' is that they can take that money and try to do absolutely crazy outside the box stuff which everyone else would say is impossible. And that those grand efforts may benefit humanity enormously. Musk has already shown that building low cost rockets and advancing space tech is completely possible and that others should try to do it. So the 'crazy billionaire' factor of benefit is already spent.
To be clear, I'd much rather they just paid more tax or paid their workers more. But, in the more sensible world where Bezos is discussing how to spend his $0.5 billion dollar fortune which he has amassed as one of the richest people in the world he still can't claim that doing space launch stuff is some noble endeavor, because another crazy billionaire already did it!
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
There isn't going to be an ark.
+29
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
+7
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Build rockets to go where?
If we cant figure out how to stabilize our environment here on earth where it is easy mode we aren't going to be able to do it elsewhere. And right now we don't have the technology to get people, foodstuffs, or even seeds elsewhere without sterilization and impending death from radiation in space.
Bezos spending money on space is his right, but it isn't particularly helpful to humanity as a whole so much as his own science interests (which, again, is fine as its his money).
Because investing is a gamble, which is why there is always warnings saying as much when you buy any stock.
He was the founder of the company, though. But founding a company is also a bit of a lottery ticket - you can lose your shirt unless you are born into big money, which judging from his Wikipedia page, Bezos wasn't.
The biggest winners from investing early in Bezos’s idea were his parents, Mike and Jackie Bezos, who pumped in $300,000 in return for 6% of the company, which sold its first book – about artificial intelligence – in July 1995. “It couldn’t happen to two nicer people,” Bezos says of his parents’ windfall.
The whole thing is being made overly complicated anyway. Bezos, and people like him, sit atop stolen fortunes. What they choose to do with them has no relevance
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
There isn't going to be an ark.
I mean there might be an ark. It's going to be for Bezos and his buddies though.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
Space research could be important long-term, and governments have been neglecting it recently.
Very true, but, SpaceX is already doing a fine job of moving things along there. Bezos entering the fray too clearly states that he thinks it is a profit making opportunity, not altruism, since you don't need more than SpaceX unless you want to make money.
That might be taking it a bit far, competition being good for innovation among other things.
Replace "SpaceX" with "Comcast" and see if your assertion holds up.
Well. In a profit space maybe. But it’s more likely to result in price competition. But in a non-profit space I don’t see it.
what gave you the impression these companies were in space exploration not for profit?
Because there is no profit to be had until exploration starts actually bringing stuff back.
Maybe this will make sense. Cost reduction always has an incentive regardless of market structure, because any cost reduction directly translates to profit at the current price(or it produces an increased production of whatever the non-profit is doing at current total cost). For profit competitive industries do not have advantages over non-competitive industries on this angle*. The place where competition has an effect is in prices and quantity.
*A good example is Comcast et al, which are consistently working on cost reductions. But since there is no competition these cost reductions do not get translated to price reductions. That doesn't mean that you necessarily "see" those cost reductions. Comcast is a monopoly and so will restrict quantity in order to increase price as they see fit.
The entire SpaceX venture is based on future profitability. SpaceX is not public, but it has investors. Investors who are hoping to become very rich off of (current) payload contracts and (hypothetical future) mining contracts. It's not profitable right now but that does not mean that profit is not a motive.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+10
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Because investing is a gamble, which is why there is always warnings saying as much when you buy any stock.
He was the founder of the company, though. But founding a company is also a bit of a lottery ticket - you can lose your shirt unless you are born into big money, which judging from his Wikipedia page, Bezos wasn't.
The biggest winners from investing early in Bezos’s idea were his parents, Mike and Jackie Bezos, who pumped in $300,000 in return for 6% of the company, which sold its first book – about artificial intelligence – in July 1995. “It couldn’t happen to two nicer people,” Bezos says of his parents’ windfall.
yeah and he started Amazon in his garage... after quitting his job as a hedge fund manager.
it's kind of a myth. one I see often to justify why founders of companies should get to keep all their money. "They took the risk! They should be rewarded!" unless you're an idiot founding a company only carries the risk that you will lose your investment. the fact that most start-ups fail does not mean their owners experience financial ruin, it just means they have to get back to a normal job.
A Princeton educated hedge fund manager like Bezos can do whatever he wants if his company fails. it is not a real risk.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
And Elon Musk has been kind of bad at advancing a lot of things like electric cars beyond hype.
Space research could be important long-term, and governments have been neglecting it recently.
Very true, but, SpaceX is already doing a fine job of moving things along there. Bezos entering the fray too clearly states that he thinks it is a profit making opportunity, not altruism, since you don't need more than SpaceX unless you want to make money.
That might be taking it a bit far, competition being good for innovation among other things.
Replace "SpaceX" with "Comcast" and see if your assertion holds up.
Well. In a profit space maybe. But it’s more likely to result in price competition. But in a non-profit space I don’t see it.
what gave you the impression these companies were in space exploration not for profit?
Because there is no profit to be had until exploration starts actually bringing stuff back.
Maybe this will make sense. Cost reduction always has an incentive regardless of market structure, because any cost reduction directly translates to profit at the current price(or it produces an increased production of whatever the non-profit is doing at current total cost). For profit competitive industries do not have advantages over non-competitive industries on this angle*. The place where competition has an effect is in prices and quantity.
*A good example is Comcast et al, which are consistently working on cost reductions. But since there is no competition these cost reductions do not get translated to price reductions. That doesn't mean that you necessarily "see" those cost reductions. Comcast is a monopoly and so will restrict quantity in order to increase price as they see fit.
The entire SpaceX venture is based on future profitability. SpaceX is not public, but it has investors. Investors who are hoping to become very rich off of (current) payload contracts and (hypothetical future) mining contracts. It's not profitable right now but that does not mean that profit is not a motive.
It doesnt matter if it’s about future profitability. The issue is that competition does not produce innovation. Competition produces price and quantity competition. Innovation is not generally increased as a result of competition. If you take one company and split it in half you do not get better innovation... you get lower prices and higher quantities produced.
If you’re a monopoly you have just as much (or more actually) incentive to innovate as you will produce even greater monopoly profits when your costs go down (and it will be easier to maintain your monopoly)
Additionally it would matter about whether they’re competing now if there was to be any effect... and they are not. If there is any competition effect it would be as a result of publically available products. Ford can innovate off what Honda does (as soon as their patents run out) because it can buy a Honda car and disassemble it. There is no such interplay in that manner here
Edit: look, I don’t think the investment is bad. It’s just that “competition” isn’t a valuable justification as a reason except insomuch as profits are bad in general. We don’t get better space craft out of innovation.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
You don't fix our world by adding to the sum total of human misery.
And we can talk all we like about "well if a meteor comes by and" stuff but even if we assume they're actually working towards some kind of collective good against stellar threats, which theyre 10000% not, you're weighing hypothetical against real immediate human misery.
So fuck these guys, I hope all their ill gotten wealth is taken from them.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+13
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
The self preservation instincts of the rich?
You mean those things that tanked the economy twice?
Double hard pass.
+14
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
And Elon Musk has been kind of bad at advancing a lot of things like electric cars beyond hype.
Also a lot of his ideas are terrible. like being against public transport.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
The self preservation instincts of the rich?
You mean those things that tanked the economy twice?
Double hard pass.
I don't see our governments looking sufficiently into the future, so it's the only hope I have left.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
The self preservation instincts of the rich?
You mean those things that tanked the economy twice?
Double hard pass.
I don't see our governments looking sufficiently into the future, so it's the only hope I have left.
They sure did when we taxed people appropriately and didn't rely on the whims of the elite class who really don't care if people live or die as long as they get their $$$.
Historically the survival instincts of the rich have led them to take action against you, not on your behalf.
What'll happen is Bezos et al will get their asteroid mining, the price of iron/nickle/platinum will drop to nil and you'll get to see a bunch of stuff on the TV that you'll never be a part of while continuing to work a job where the sum total of your life's work will be stripped to the barest minimum you need to survive because the people at the top will never meaningfully change a system that got them there in the first place.
They won't take you to mars. They won't stop rising ocean waters.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
The self preservation instincts of the rich?
You mean those things that tanked the economy twice?
Double hard pass.
I don't see our governments looking sufficiently into the future, so it's the only hope I have left.
Our decision isn't between our current oligarchs or a different set of oligarchs.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
Relying on taxes is how we got up there in the first place.
If the rich start paying their fair share, maybe we wont have to reply on the vainity of a couple of billionaires to get anything done.
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
The self preservation instincts of the rich?
You mean those things that tanked the economy twice?
Double hard pass.
I don't see our governments looking sufficiently into the future, so it's the only hope I have left.
You should just give into pure misanthropy. Believing in the altruism of the rich is silly when you look at the history of every civilization with a rich upper class.
More over, there is no reason to think that the rich have any more of a long term view than the government, since the government is ultimately run by and for rich people.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
Isn't this the singularity theory? Computers will eventually fix all our problems so it doesnt matter how destructive the path required is, only that it is also the fastest.
How we would expect the rich to save us from global warming when it won't even effect them is beyond me. There aren't any saviors and people shouldn't look for them.
+7
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
How we would expect the rich to save us from global warming when it won't even effect them is beyond me. There aren't any saviors and people shouldn't look for them.
Mental expediency.
Easier to dust your hands off and go "NAW THE RICH GOT US! JUST LET THEM INVENT!" than it is to actually go out there and try to enact change.
I dunno a bunch of aliens might show up to offer humanity a seat in the Pan-Galactic Council of Intelligences and give us free energy and matter replicators and stuff
If the planet is going to burn, building rockets to get people off it is a moral good.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
What's the point here?
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
Relying on taxes is how we got up there in the first place.
If the rich start paying their fair share, maybe we wont have to reply on the vainity of a couple of billionaires to get anything done.
Perhaps.
But it seems to me self-preservation in the face of oncoming heat death is more prominent than any prevailing self-preservation in the face of a popular uprising at the moment.
So up until we force the rich to pay more taxes, I'm happy to let them fund these initiatives directly.
Posts
And that selfish reason to be that they really, really want to take part in space exploration, because space is cool.
Two assholes racing rockets around the planet while we all work ourselves inti a grave is the best method for distributing resources.
Because there is no profit to be had until exploration starts actually bringing stuff back.
Maybe this will make sense. Cost reduction always has an incentive regardless of market structure, because any cost reduction directly translates to profit at the current price(or it produces an increased production of whatever the non-profit is doing at current total cost). For profit competitive industries do not have advantages over non-competitive industries on this angle*. The place where competition has an effect is in prices and quantity.
*A good example is Comcast et al, which are consistently working on cost reductions. But since there is no competition these cost reductions do not get translated to price reductions. That doesn't mean that you necessarily "see" those cost reductions. Comcast is a monopoly and so will restrict quantity in order to increase price as they see fit.
Yes, but the only argument of merit for the 'extreme wealth of billionaires' is that they can take that money and try to do absolutely crazy outside the box stuff which everyone else would say is impossible. And that those grand efforts may benefit humanity enormously. Musk has already shown that building low cost rockets and advancing space tech is completely possible and that others should try to do it. So the 'crazy billionaire' factor of benefit is already spent.
To be clear, I'd much rather they just paid more tax or paid their workers more. But, in the more sensible world where Bezos is discussing how to spend his $0.5 billion dollar fortune which he has amassed as one of the richest people in the world he still can't claim that doing space launch stuff is some noble endeavor, because another crazy billionaire already did it!
Maybe free Netflix accounts or something.
Ideally I'd prefer money poured into things that stop the planet burning, but I haven't seen that suggested here in this thread yet either.
There isn't going to be an ark.
A bunch of people did, in fact, suggest exactly that.
If we cant figure out how to stabilize our environment here on earth where it is easy mode we aren't going to be able to do it elsewhere. And right now we don't have the technology to get people, foodstuffs, or even seeds elsewhere without sterilization and impending death from radiation in space.
Bezos spending money on space is his right, but it isn't particularly helpful to humanity as a whole so much as his own science interests (which, again, is fine as its his money).
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/25/jeff-bezos-the-boy-who-wanted-to-colonise-space
The Sun please
Since the Bezos tweet?
If they did, I did not see it.
I mean there might be an ark. It's going to be for Bezos and his buddies though.
What's the point here?
The entire SpaceX venture is based on future profitability. SpaceX is not public, but it has investors. Investors who are hoping to become very rich off of (current) payload contracts and (hypothetical future) mining contracts. It's not profitable right now but that does not mean that profit is not a motive.
???
The point here is I think Elon Musk has the right idea, investing in cleaning up energy and space.
That Bezos has only invested in half does not seem to warrant a moral outcry.
Sure he could do other things, but I would rather he do this thing right now.
He's doing it by systemically abusing people. That's the moral outrage.
Hard pass.
yeah and he started Amazon in his garage... after quitting his job as a hedge fund manager.
it's kind of a myth. one I see often to justify why founders of companies should get to keep all their money. "They took the risk! They should be rewarded!" unless you're an idiot founding a company only carries the risk that you will lose your investment. the fact that most start-ups fail does not mean their owners experience financial ruin, it just means they have to get back to a normal job.
A Princeton educated hedge fund manager like Bezos can do whatever he wants if his company fails. it is not a real risk.
And Elon Musk has been kind of bad at advancing a lot of things like electric cars beyond hype.
It doesnt matter if it’s about future profitability. The issue is that competition does not produce innovation. Competition produces price and quantity competition. Innovation is not generally increased as a result of competition. If you take one company and split it in half you do not get better innovation... you get lower prices and higher quantities produced.
If you’re a monopoly you have just as much (or more actually) incentive to innovate as you will produce even greater monopoly profits when your costs go down (and it will be easier to maintain your monopoly)
Additionally it would matter about whether they’re competing now if there was to be any effect... and they are not. If there is any competition effect it would be as a result of publically available products. Ford can innovate off what Honda does (as soon as their patents run out) because it can buy a Honda car and disassemble it. There is no such interplay in that manner here
Edit: look, I don’t think the investment is bad. It’s just that “competition” isn’t a valuable justification as a reason except insomuch as profits are bad in general. We don’t get better space craft out of innovation.
I don't care if he abuses people if he does so to fix the planet.
We are probably going to need rockets to fix the planet.
I mean, otherwise you're relying on taxes to launch rockets, but I don't see that happening.
I believe we will be relying on the self-preservation instincts of the rich in order to get through this.
And we can talk all we like about "well if a meteor comes by and" stuff but even if we assume they're actually working towards some kind of collective good against stellar threats, which theyre 10000% not, you're weighing hypothetical against real immediate human misery.
So fuck these guys, I hope all their ill gotten wealth is taken from them.
The self preservation instincts of the rich?
You mean those things that tanked the economy twice?
Double hard pass.
Also a lot of his ideas are terrible. like being against public transport.
plus also not letting workers unionize.
I don't see our governments looking sufficiently into the future, so it's the only hope I have left.
They sure did when we taxed people appropriately and didn't rely on the whims of the elite class who really don't care if people live or die as long as they get their $$$.
What'll happen is Bezos et al will get their asteroid mining, the price of iron/nickle/platinum will drop to nil and you'll get to see a bunch of stuff on the TV that you'll never be a part of while continuing to work a job where the sum total of your life's work will be stripped to the barest minimum you need to survive because the people at the top will never meaningfully change a system that got them there in the first place.
They won't take you to mars. They won't stop rising ocean waters.
Our decision isn't between our current oligarchs or a different set of oligarchs.
It's not like we can't have government working on space settlement and exploration.
This was a thing we were doing for a while.
Even the space settlement stuff.
But then, well, Proxmire
Relying on taxes is how we got up there in the first place.
If the rich start paying their fair share, maybe we wont have to reply on the vainity of a couple of billionaires to get anything done.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
You should just give into pure misanthropy. Believing in the altruism of the rich is silly when you look at the history of every civilization with a rich upper class.
More over, there is no reason to think that the rich have any more of a long term view than the government, since the government is ultimately run by and for rich people.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Isn't this the singularity theory? Computers will eventually fix all our problems so it doesnt matter how destructive the path required is, only that it is also the fastest.
Mental expediency.
Easier to dust your hands off and go "NAW THE RICH GOT US! JUST LET THEM INVENT!" than it is to actually go out there and try to enact change.
That'd be nice
Any day now
Perhaps.
But it seems to me self-preservation in the face of oncoming heat death is more prominent than any prevailing self-preservation in the face of a popular uprising at the moment.
So up until we force the rich to pay more taxes, I'm happy to let them fund these initiatives directly.