Billionaires Blast off

[Derec]

Say what you will about the government but it is much more a meritocracy than Amazon or Tesla or Virgin Airlines...

How do you figure that?

 

[Derec]

We have cell phones because of government funded research

Is anybody here arguing against government-funded research?
But without the private sector that research does not become products and services you can actually use.
The Soviet Union had very strong basic research. But because it being an actually existing socialist country, that did not translate into USSR becoming a powerhouse for computers, or telecommunications, or automobiles or really anything else.

and government launched satellites.

Cell phones do not run on satellites.

 

[Derec]

That’s an ignorant quip, not an argument.

No, it is not. You committed the fallacy of the excluded middle, and I pointed it out.

We have tyranny of minority.

Not in the way you think. The idiot freshman congresswoman from Queens has a lot more political power than Jeff Bezos.
And she only has that power because 17k people (in a district of 700k) voted for her in the primary. So in a way, you are right after all.

You may lack the awareness to realize it, but you’re the perfect rube, perpetuating the status quo.

I thought insulting fellow posters was against the TOU?

I encourage you to think real hard about whose welfare is more important- the 99.9999 percent or the billionaires. Then think about which group a government should serve.

My point was that the government should not be able to ride roughshod over a small group of people just because they happen to be a small group of people.
Even if that small group is the hated billionaires and you want to confiscate most of their wealth (two thirds in that one article that was posted upthread) to pay for most of Biden's $3.5T non-infrastructure spending bill.

 

[Derec]

We kidnapped a bunch of German rocket scientists and funded them massively and we figured out how to fairly consistently put payloads into space and bring them back

 

[Derec]

Ants are smarter than Republicans.

If ants were that smart, they'd have invented indoor plumbing instead of drinking from droplets on leaves like savages.

 

[Derec]

That has some connection to game theory. I am far from an expert.
But the best way to gain for yourself is to live in a cooperative environment.
A competitive environment has losers as well as winners.
You have no guarantee you will be a winner.

You need both cooperation and competition. Without competition you get stasis.

 

[Derec]

I see Tesla reported a QUARTERLY profit of $1.2 billion dollars. A couple of things on that, Musk will no doubt be well rewarded for that, seventh straight quarter of profit I believe. Why does the government continue to subsidize the purchase of these overpriced cars with tax credits ?

Because the government wants to encourage adoption of electric cars over ICEs.

Elon Musk has contributed more to fighting climate change than a 100 AOCs ...

 

[DrZoidberg]

Does anyone else find themselves secretly hoping that one of them explodes?

That’s wrong I know, but what’s the point of these trips? They aren’t advancing science. They’re just going a multi million dollar thrill ride.

I don't. This is how technological progress is made.

View attachment 34612

How much progress is being hindered by most of the country being poorly paid and only a few billionaires making progress for their own ends? There are smart people in all walks of life that could make technological progress if they had the means and the time.

Define progress? This is a meaning of life question. I'm a socialist, because too great income differences leads to social and political instability. But I'm NOT socialist because I'm jealous of rich people. Rich people pushing the boundaries of the possible has historically been a great engine for progress and innovation. As is practical thingy's making life easier for the poor. We don't have to chose. We can, with today's technology, make everybody prosperous. It's within our means. But if we just take from the rich and give to the poor, then everybody ends up poor. It's not a viable option.

 

[lpetrich]

I get the impression that some believe that it's only the super rich who make discoveries and get things done, that without them the whole population would sit around and gaze at their navels until everyone starved.

Some folks appear to worship this new class of Royalty. The repackaged Lords and Ladies, Dukes and Duchesses of Society. All bow down to their greatness.

May they have mercy upon us and trickle down their blessings.

Ayn Rand wrote a novel with exactly that theme: Atlas Shrugged.

In it, business leaders and other super producers mysteriously disappear, and society collapses from their absence. Late in it, we find out where they went.

Early in it, railroad magnate Dagny Taggart was riding a train that stopped because of a broken signal light. Do any of them call in to the railroad's dispatchers? No, DT orders the train to continue, and the train drivers are presented as a bunch of sniveling cowards for opposing her supposedly heroic leadership.

At one point, one character, Francisco d'Anconia, makes a "money speech" where he says that money is the root of all good.

There is also a train accident in it that killed many of its passengers, and AR lovingly detailed the intellectual sins of those passengers. Sins like these:

The man in Bedroom A, Car No. I, was a professor of sociology who taught that individual ability is of no consequence, that individual effort is futile, that an individual conscience is a useless luxury, that there is no individual mind or character or achievement, that everything is achieved collectively, and that it's masses that count, not men.

... The man in Roomette 7, Car No. 2, was a journalist who wrote that it is proper and moral to use compulsion "for a good cause," who believed that he had the right to unleash physical force upon others to wreck lives, throttle ambitions, strangle desires, violate convictions, to imprison, to despoil, to murder - for the sake of whatever he chose to consider as his own idea of "a good cause"...

... The woman in Roomette 10, Car No. 3, was an elderly schoolteacher who had spent her life turning class after class of helpless children into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil…

... The man in Drawing Room B, Car No, 4, was a newspaper publisher who believed that men are evil by nature and unfit for freedom, that their basic instincts, if left unchecked, are to lie, to rob and to murder one another - and, therefore, men must be ruled by means of lies, robbery and murder, which must be made the exclusive privilege of the rulers.

... The man in Bedroom H, Car No. 5, was a businessman who had acquired his business, an ore mine, with the help of a government loan, under the Equalization of Opportunity Bill.

... The man in Roomette 2, Car No. 9, was a professor of economics who advocated the abolition of private property, explaining that intelligence plays no part in industrial production, that man's mind is conditioned by material tools, that anybody can run a factory or a railroad and it's only a matter of seizing the machinery.

The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives, which she defended by saying, "I don't care, it's only the rich that they hurt. After all, I must think of my children."

... The man in Roomette 3, Car No. 11, was a sniveling little neurotic who wrote cheap little plays into which, as a social message, he inserted cowardly little obscenities to the effect that all businessmen were scoundrels.

... The man in Bedroom F, Car No. 13, was a lawyer who had said, "Me? I'll find a way to get along under any political system."

The man in Bedroom A, Car No. 14, was a professor of philosophy who taught that there is no mind - how do you know that the tunnel is dangerous? - no reality - how can you prove that the tunnel exists? - no logic - why do you claim that trains cannot move without motive power? - no principles - why should you be bound by the law of cause-and-effect?

... The man in Bedroom A, Car No. 16, was a humanitarian who had said, "The men of ability? I do not care what or if they are made to suffer. They must be penalized in order to support the incompetent. Frankly, I do not care whether this is just or not.. take pride in not caring to grant any justice to the able, where mercy to the needy is concerned."

Adam Lee on Atlas Shrugged - a blow-by-blow review of the entire novel

 

[Canard DuJour]

How much progress is being hindered by most of the country being poorly paid and only a few billionaires making progress for their own ends? There are smart people in all walks of life that could make technological progress if they had the means and the time.

Define progress? This is a meaning of life question. I'm a socialist, because too great income differences leads to social and political instability. But I'm NOT socialist because I'm jealous of rich people. Rich people pushing the boundaries of the possible has historically been a great engine for progress and innovation. As is practical thingy's making life easier for the poor. We don't have to chose. We can, with today's technology, make everybody prosperous. It's within our means. But if we just take from the rich and give to the poor, then everybody ends up poor. It's not a viable option.

Pretty much my position.

The problem is ultra-rich individuals who don't want to pay taxes and don't want the govt to spend without taxing. Individuals who are so rich they can buy govt policies. They are a big part of why something like the Apollo programme is no longer politically possible. Or why we think we "can't afford" to tackle the existential threat of climate change.

 

[untermensche]

But without the private sector that research does not become products and services you can actually use.

That is only because the government gives the technology away.

It is not free enterprise. It is crony capitalism.

But the government can build a space shuttle.

It can easily build a phone.

 

[ZiprHead]

Maybe not in an authoritarian State, but in a representative democracy, it does should.

It doesn't change the fact that you're playing tax-the-outgroup.

That's because the outgroup isn't paying taxes the way the ingroup is.

 

[ZiprHead]

How much progress is being hindered by most of the country being poorly paid and only a few billionaires making progress for their own ends? There are smart people in all walks of life that could make technological progress if they had the means and the time.

Define progress?

What kind of a bullshit question is that?

This is a meaning of life question. I'm a socialist, because too great income differences leads to social and political instability. But I'm NOT socialist because I'm jealous of rich people. Rich people pushing the boundaries of the possible has historically been a great engine for progress and innovation. As is practical thingy's making life easier for the poor. We don't have to chose. We can, with today's technology, make everybody prosperous. It's within our means. But if we just take from the rich and give to the poor, then everybody ends up poor. It's not a viable option.

Prove it. You seem to think it's a zero sum game.

And you live in Denmark. It makes me wonder if you know what life is like for the working class in the US.

 

[untermensche]

Prove it. You seem to think it's a zero sum game.

What does that even mean?

What people want is protections for the most vulnerable and those least able to protect themselves from the amoral inequities and exploitation of capitalism.

 

[DBT]

What kind of a bullshit question is that?

This is a meaning of life question. I'm a socialist, because too great income differences leads to social and political instability. But I'm NOT socialist because I'm jealous of rich people. Rich people pushing the boundaries of the possible has historically been a great engine for progress and innovation. As is practical thingy's making life easier for the poor. We don't have to chose. We can, with today's technology, make everybody prosperous. It's within our means. But if we just take from the rich and give to the poor, then everybody ends up poor. It's not a viable option.

Prove it. You seem to think it's a zero sum game.

And you live in Denmark. It makes me wonder if you know what life is like for the working class in the US.

Oh, yeah, the rich really cared about their workers during the early days of the industrial revolution with 12 hour days and horrendous conditions for very little pay. Such compassion.

 

[ZiprHead]

Prove it. You seem to think it's a zero sum game.

What does that even mean?

What people want is protections for the most vulnerable and those least able to protect themselves from the amoral inequities and exploitation of capitalism.

It means the pie is almost always growing. Not static, as Dr Z seems to think. The rich however are taking huge chunks of that pie. The irony is is that if worker remuneration were better, the upper classes could still do great, having more customers to sell their goods and services to.

But that's not good enough for them. So they fund think tanks to fight against unionization and for lower taxes for themselves. They fund ALEC that actually writes anti-labor laws and anti-tax laws and anti-regulation laws for the Republicans to introduce. They fight regulations in the courts systems.

They may throw a little pittance to a charity here and there so they can call themselves philanthropists, but they're still just greedy capitalists.

 

[Derec]

But the government can build a space shuttle.
It can easily build a phone.

Then why didn't the governments in actually existing socialist countries do that?
Without all the capitalist parasites to crony up the whole thing, USSR in the 80s should have had the world-best mobile phone network and phones that put Nokia to shame. Why didn't they?

 

[Derec]

That's because the outgroup isn't paying taxes the way the ingroup is.

47% of Americans, as Mitt Romney famously pointed out, pay no (or negative) federal income taxes.
On the other hand, Bezos paid almost a billion dollars over a five year period, Musk paid almost half a billion. I guess a 900 million is less than 0 in woke math.

The outgroup is paying all the same taxes the ingroup is paying, i.e. on income - salaries and capital gains, but at higher rates and with no EITC and other "refundable credits".
The Left want them to pay additional taxes on wealth (Warren, Sanders) or unrealized capital gains (that ProPublica hit piece) that the ingroup would not be subject to.

 

[Toni]

That's because the outgroup isn't paying taxes the way the ingroup is.

47% of Americans, as Mitt Romney famously pointed out, pay no (or negative) federal income taxes.
On the other hand, Bezos paid almost a billion dollars over a five year period, Musk paid almost half a billion. I guess a 900 million is less than 0 in woke math.

The outgroup is paying all the same taxes the ingroup is paying, i.e. on income - salaries and capital gains, but at higher rates and with no EITC and other "refundable credits".
The Left want them to pay additional taxes on wealth (Warren, Sanders) or unrealized capital gains (that ProPublica hit piece) that the ingroup would not be subject to.

Where did you get that information re: Bezos' tax payments?

Because that's not what the IRS says:

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...d-musk-pay-relatively-little-in-income-taxes/

Bezos, chief executive of Amazon and the owner of The Washington Post, paid $973 million in taxes on $4.22 billion in income, as his wealth soared by $99 billion, resulting in a 0.98% “true tax rate.”

Bezos filed a tax return in 2011 reporting he lost money because of bad investments, allowing him to claim and receive a $4,000 tax credit for his children, according to ProPublica.

According to ProPublica, Bezos managed to not pay any taxes some years:

https://www.propublica.org/article/...ds-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

That $900M that Bezos paid? That was a federal tax rate of 0.98%

 

[Derec]

The problem is ultra-rich individuals who don't want to pay taxes

Nobody particularly wants to pay taxes. But they do pay taxes.

and don't want the govt to spend without taxing.

If you spend more than you take in, you either have to borrow or inflate the money supply, or both. Both are dangerous to rely too much on, so-called "Modern Monetary Theory" notwithstanding.

Individuals who are so rich they can buy govt policies.

Not really. Bezos could not even build HQ2 in Queens because a certain idiot congresswoman objected.

They are a big part of why something like the Apollo programme is no longer politically possible.

Something like the Apollo program is not politically possible because of what politicians (and their constituents) want, not because Bezos et al are not paying a wealth tax.
If Warren's tax plan were to pass, the Biden administration would not spend the extra ca. $300G that it may bring in on increasing the NASA budget but on the Biden administration priorities that help those whom they see as their constituency - free child/elder care, increased child tax credits, perhaps cancelling $50k in student debts for poetry or art history graduates of some small private liberal arts college.

If Bezos and Musk were not in this space, nobody would be.

Or why we think we "can't afford" to tackle the existential threat of climate change.

As I said before, Musk creating Tesla did far more to combat climate change than all the resolutions AOC and the rest of the Squad proposed in Congress.
Her "Green New Deal" is not only ridiculously expensive (not even a small fraction of the $60T price tag could be funded even by stealing all the wealth of US billionaires ~($4.5T)!) but most of it (e.g. federal job guarantees) have nothing to do with climate. It is similar to Dems' $6T (later reduced to $3.5T) boondoggle that has the "infrastructure" moniker, but has nothing to do with infrastructure. The actual infrastructure spending i (almost) entirely contained in the much smaller bipartisan bill that may or may not go anywhere.