Is it bad to be rich?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

As to running on empty, as it were, or at a loss, Amazon.com ran that way for some time before it got into profitability, and made its founder, Jeff Bezos, into a multi-billionaire. Of course there are plenty of failed enterprises as well.

I think the difference is that Amazon had a plan to be profitable. The losses were eaten by Amazon living off of investment money building market share before monetizing it. It is rare for that to work as long as it did. A smaller scale version of this was YouTube which had no real revenue for a long time and were primarily just trying to build a dominant market share before monetizing at all. The difference with moon mining is that there is really no way to make profit off of it. Market share is unlikely to be an issue. If you get it working you are probably the only game in town.

There is also a danger in a mining operating that you would run afoul of international treaties. Under current treaties no nation can claim anything in space or claim exclusive use of anything. Private ownership isn’t explicitly forbidden but you can argue it is implied. That makes long term mining and development legally problematic. If space becomes a resource rush for any reason we are going to need more treaties. There was a really old game I played when I was young that posited private interests taking over space. The corporation basically ran it. There was also a population on Mars who were discriminated against by the corporation and war breaks out. The nations back on Earth primarily just mediate as they don’t have a presence off-planet. I remember the designer intending that to be his own subtle hint that letting private interests take over space entirely is likely to lead to conflict.

Something like a lunar rail gun even if designed for transport purposes might conflict with law. While only WMDs are forbidden from being stationed or used in space (with the exception of ballistic missiles fired from and targeted on Earth) the provisions about peace in space make a lunar rail gun a possible violation since it could be used as a weapon. Probably not a thing though. Rail guns have severe limitations as weapon systems due to the need to “power up” the weapon and the lack of durability in most models. Even railguns designed to be really durable will probably need regular maintenance checks between shots. I know some naval warship design junkies who harbor a secret hope that railguns and gauss weapons take over naval warfare due to the evolving EW environment making missiles and drones less valuable. Basically they just want people to build battleships again.

And a fun short bit about space warfare. If you miss you still get to ruin somebody’s day.

 

[Kenngo1969]

"Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy ice cream ... which, pretty much, is the same thing!"    

[Calm]

Coconut and ‘fresh’ strawberry….yum…or avocado, surprisingly delicious. 

[Kenngo1969]

 

[rodheadlee]

 

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Something like a lunar rail gun even if designed for transport purposes might conflict with law. While only WMDs are forbidden from being stationed or used in space (with the exception of ballistic missiles fired from and targeted on Earth) the provisions about peace in space make a lunar rail gun a possible violation since it could be used as a weapon. Probably not a thing though. Rail guns have severe limitations as weapon systems due to the need to “power up” the weapon and the lack of durability in most models. Even railguns designed to be really durable will probably need regular maintenance checks between shots. I know some naval warship design junkies who harbor a secret hope that railguns and gauss weapons take over naval warfare due to the evolving EW environment making missiles and drones less valuable. Basically they just want people to build battleships again.

I wonder if you've ever read Heinlein's 1966 novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? I don't know if he was the first to posit a lunar mass driver, but a mass driver used originally for delivery of lunar-grown wheat to an Indian Ocean pickup location, but in a rebellion is used as a weapon to force earth governments to recognize the moon as independent -- and the rebellion is more-or-less led by a sentient computer (that neither the Lunar Authority nor most of the human leaders know to be sentient). 

Entirely apart from the Heinlein novel, once it becomes advantageous for a particular country to abrogate their commitment to the Moon treaty, it will be abrogated. And as long as a corporation has its base and most of its assets on earth, the corporation will still be de jure and de facto subject to the authority of the country the corporation is based in. Much would be made of the fact that the Moon is outside the jurisdiction of any one country, and so then how is a country (or the UN for that matter) to legally exercise control over any group on the Moon? There are a LOT of questions that will come up once it becomes cost effective to mine the Moon. It will be nicely unbalanced.

[Kenngo1969]

Warning to those of tender eyes, tender ears, and tender years: Here be strong language.* *There is a reference to bovine excrement in the song.    

 

[mbh26]

On 12/26/2021 at 5:14 PM, The Nehor said:

The only exception is if God thinks you aren’t doing enough you may want to chat with Him over how to help people.

God's love and mercy extend to rich people as well as poor people.  Which is worse in your mind, the man who did well for himself but maybe didn't give enough back, or the man who never did anything but self destruct in vice until he was disabled and useless. 

[The Nehor]

On 12/26/2021 at 11:51 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

"Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy ice cream ... which, pretty much, is the same thing!"    

“If money can’t buy happiness I guess I’ll have to rent it.” -Weird Al

That ice cream makes me nervous. It is going to make a mess.

Edited December 28, 2021 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, mbh26 said:

God's love and mercy extend to rich people as well as poor people.  Which is worse in your mind, the man who did well for himself but maybe didn't give enough back, or the man who never did anything but self destruct in vice until he was disabled and useless. 

My reason wants to agree with you but then:

Quote

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, 'Who then can be saved?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

I guess the disciples agreed with my first reaction. It was greatly astonishing when Jesus smashed the idea that the wealthy are playing the game with the same rules.

I suspect it has something to do with why those people self destructed in vice. I would put the probability at about 70% that if I lived in an age without any real concept of mental health care that I would be a drug addict, an alcoholic, or dead by now from frenzied attempts to get my stupid brain to SHUT UP! Or maybe I would have focused on other coping mechanisms. They are pretty much all sins in my experience.

Also I say this as someone who will likely be low-tier rich at some point so I am going to have to try to stick that camel (or anchor rope if you go with the theory that camel was a bad copy of the original) through that stupid needle.

[rodheadlee]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

.

Also I say this as someone who will likely be low-tier rich at some point so I am going to have to try to stick that camel (or anchor rope if you go with the theory that camel was a bad copy of the original) through that stupid needle.

I don't have a donation page but if you need help spending money, just let me know. A boat is a hole in the water into which you pour money. My excuse is that my boat is my home. 

 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I don't have a donation page but if you need help spending money, just let me know. A boat is a hole in the water into which you pour money. My excuse is that my boat is my home. 

 

Sure, it will be a while though. I make enough now to survive but I will likely get some inheritance money at some point. I am not planning on relying on it and won’t feel cheated if I never get it but it is likely I will get something. Plus I have no desire to lose the people I would have to lose to get it.

[rodheadlee]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Sure, it will be a while though. I make enough now to survive but I will likely get some inheritance money at some point. I am not planning on relying on it and won’t feel cheated if I never get it but it is likely I will get something. Plus I have no desire to lose the people I would have to lose to get it.

I get it. I was trying to be funny. 

[poptart]

24 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I don't have a donation page but if you need help spending money, just let me know. A boat is a hole in the water into which you pour money. My excuse is that my boat is my home. 

 

Do you live on a boat?  What kind if I may ask?

[rodheadlee]

Just now, poptart said:

Do you live on a boat?  What kind if I may ask?

Yes, a 43 foot Mason cutter, 1979. We bought it in Annapolis Maryland refit it and sailed it down to Panama and up to San Francisco then down to Mexico. Prior to that we had lived on board a 1979 Catalina 38. We sailed it from Los Angeles to Mexico and then to the South Pacific. We have been living on boats since 1999. It's become very hard to find a place to park it in Southern California which is why it is in Ensenada.

We have been on the live board get a slip list for three years in Chula Vista. I love Ensenada but it's too far from my dad's house and work because it takes 3 hours to get over the Border.

[poptart]

7 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yes, a 43 foot Mason cutter, 1979. We bought it in Annapolis Maryland refit it and sailed it down to Panama and up to San Francisco then down to Mexico. Prior to that we had lived on board a 1979 Catalina 38. We sailed it from Los Angeles to Mexico and then to the South Pacific. We have been living on boats since 1999. It's become very hard to find a place to park it in Southern California which is why it is in Ensenada.

We have been on the live board get a slip list for three years in Chula Vista. I love Ensenada but it's too far from my dad's house and work because it takes 3 hours to get over the Border.

I'm considering doing the same thing in a few years, CA is fantastic for medical people plus great pay.  Anymore the cost of living here in eastern CO is about as bad as SoCal, without the wages and worker rights.  The ocean is a nice touch too.

[rodheadlee]

5 minutes ago, poptart said:

I'm considering doing the same thing in a few years, CA is fantastic for medical people plus great pay.  Anymore the cost of living here in eastern CO is about as bad as SoCal, without the wages and worker rights.  The ocean is a nice touch too.

It's easier to find a slip in the delta. Sacramento down to Stockton and out toward Vallejo. I am applying for a sentri pass so we should be able to get across the border in 15 minutes. A lot of people live on the beaches South of the Border and work in San Diego. You can always get a slip in Ensenada.

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by rodheadlee

[poptart]

5 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

It's easier to find a slip in the delta. Sacramento down to Stockton and out toward Vallejo. I am applying for a sentri pass so we should be able to get across the border in 15 minutes. A lot of people live on the beaches South of the Border and work in San Diego. You can always get a slip in Ensenada.

 

Just how common is it out there to live on a sailboat?  Is it affordable?  I watch youtube videos of people living in them year round.  Part of me is envious till I see them getting caught in a storm while out at sea.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, poptart said:

Just how common is it out there to live on a sailboat?  Is it affordable?  I watch youtube videos of people living in them year round.  Part of me is envious till I see them getting caught in a storm while out at sea.

That's a good question. Probably about 40 boats made the trip from the west coast to French Polynesia in 2020. There were 22 boats entered in the puddle jump so I figure maybe double that counting people that didn't enter the event. I think about a hundred fifty boats entered the Baja run and 220 power and sail are entering the Panama posse this year. I would like to say the Veil is very thin in the sea of Cortez. It can be a very spiritual place. 

I don't know how many boats are in the annual migration from the upper Sea of Cortez to the southern Gold Coast of Mexico each year. It's getting a little crowded out there with the millionaires pushing us out of La Paz. Mexico has plenty of anchorage's so there is always some place to go. As far as the weather goes you have to get in tune and do a lot of prayer and learn to understand the weather patterns.

Living aboard in a marina the biggest danger is stray electricity in the water eating up your zincs and electrolysis ruining your propeller and thru hull fittings. 

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by rodheadlee

[Tacenda]

It's not bad to be rich if you help those in need. The message from Christ from day one. 

 

[Eph2,8]

On 12/22/2021 at 12:19 PM, Fether said:

I saw this topic brought up on another thread, felt it would be a good topic on its own.

The typical premise is “No one needs a billion dollars, so why not donate it?”

I'm a little late to the party, so I apologize if something similar to this has already been said. Also, sorry for the long post. But, it may be of interest to some. 

The thread is called "is it bad to be rich", which could be stated as "is being wealthy immoral?" Or, "is wealth inequality immoral." Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick provided what I believe to be a pretty decent answer to this question. First, consider a society where every person has been given an equal share of money. Then, imagine someone is really good at basketball - Wilt Chamberlain. Many people will freely give Wilt Chamberlain money to watch him play ball. They have transferred their money to Wilt. Over time, Wilt may end up with more money than everyone else. Thus, the pattern resulting from this transfer of money results in people having varied amounts of wealth. Nozick argues that if the transfer is just (people freely giving Wilt money to watch him play), then the pattern resulting from the transfer is just.

Nozick believes that two people freely transferring money is just, and therefore wealth inequality is also just, so long as it was attained according to the principles of this just transfer. This may not be the case for most places across time, but arguably is the case for modern day America. If this is the case, then Billionaires are not morally obligated to give their wealth, nor is them having wealth immoral in some way. To answer your additional questions:

1. No amount of wealth is too much if the transfers accumulating the wealth are just. 

2. The rich are not obligated to give money away. They can, and it would be frightfully nice of them, but there is no obligation. Plus, developmental economics might suggest that giving money to poor countries/people may not even be a good solution to poverty and other fiscal problems.

An interesting counter philosophy is that of Peter Singer. Singer's argument goes something like this:

1. Poverty, suffering, death is bad

2. If we have the power to alleviate poverty, suffering, death without sacrificing anything of comparable moral value, we must do it

3. We do have the power to alleviate poverty, suffering, death without sacrificing anything of comparable moral value

4. Therefore, we must help alleviate poverty, suffering, death. 

Singer argues that we must give until we are at the point of "marginal utility" with those receiving the aid. This would mean that we are exactly equal with them. If they have more than us, we gave too much. If they have less than us, we must give more. Singer believes that we must reshape our moral framework to not think of "charity" as a benevolent act worthy of praise, but rather as a binding moral obligation. Therefore, Singer believes that you absolutely must give aid to the less advantaged, or else you have committed a moral atrocity. To Singer, any amount of unequal wealth is immoral and wrong. 

I suspect that most would categorize Jesus' moral philosophy close to Singer's. And they may be right. 

[Fether]

25 minutes ago, Eph2,8 said:

An interesting counter philosophy is that of Peter Singer. Singer's argument goes something like this:

1. Poverty, suffering, death is bad

2. If we have the power to alleviate poverty, suffering, death without sacrificing anything of comparable moral value, we must do it

3. We do have the power to alleviate poverty, suffering, death without sacrificing anything of comparable moral value

4. Therefore, we must help alleviate poverty, suffering, death. 

Singer argues that we must give until we are at the point of "marginal utility" with those receiving the aid. This would mean that we are exactly equal with them. If they have more than us, we gave too much. If they have less than us, we must give more. Singer believes that we must reshape our moral framework to not think of "charity" as a benevolent act worthy of praise, but rather as a binding moral obligation. Therefore, Singer believes that you absolutely must give aid to the less advantaged, or else you have committed a moral atrocity. To Singer, any amount of unequal wealth is immoral and wrong. 

I suspect that most would categorize Jesus' moral philosophy close to Singer's. And they may be right. 

To me, this is sort of a shallow approach to charity.

Here is my problem with this thinking. It assumes all inequality can simply be solved by giving what is able to be given. Inequality is not rooted in having more/less. Rather it is found in character traits.

It has long been said that should you take all the wealth in The world and evenly spread it between everyone, within a year you would start seeing those wealth inequalities again. The people who were on top before would end up on top again.

Going all in on Singer’s views would make a world where the smart, ethical, hard working and industrious become slaves to the lazy and unfruitful.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

To me, this is sort of a shallow approach to charity.

Here is my problem with this thinking. It assumes all inequality can simply be solved by giving what is able to be given. Inequality is not rooted in having more/less. Rather it is found in character traits.

It has long been said that should you take all the wealth in The world and evenly spread it between everyone, within a year you would start seeing those wealth inequalities again. The people who were on top before would end up on top again.

Going all in on Singer’s views would make a world where the smart, ethical, hard working and industrious become slaves to the lazy and unfruitful.

Buried in there is the implicit assumption that the impoverished now are lazy and unfruitful.

Why not chuck the whole system of wealth entirely? Zion is hard but I hear it is worth it.

[Eph2,8]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

To me, this is sort of a shallow approach to charity.

Here is my problem with this thinking. It assumes all inequality can simply be solved by giving what is able to be given. Inequality is not rooted in having more/less. Rather it is found in character traits.

It has long been said that should you take all the wealth in The world and evenly spread it between everyone, within a year you would start seeing those wealth inequalities again. The people who were on top before would end up on top again.

Going all in on Singer’s views would make a world where the smart, ethical, hard working and industrious become slaves to the lazy and unfruitful.

I agree, I don't think that Singer's solution is actually a... solution. 

What do you think about similarities in Singer's beliefs and Jesus'? Things like "sell all you have and give it to the poor." or this interesting passage in Mosiah 4:

"16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent..."

Do you think that the moral requirement of giving that Jesus teaches is closer to Singers or an approach more similar to Nozick? I'm not really sure I have a great answer, I'm just curious. Are the smart, ethical, hard workers in the Kingdom of God slaves in some way to the lazy even now? Mitt Romney's tithing surely funds much more of church programs than someone who works the bare minimum. 

 

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, Fether said:

To me, this is sort of a shallow approach to charity.

Here is my problem with this thinking. It assumes all inequality can simply be solved by giving what is able to be given. Inequality is not rooted in having more/less. Rather it is found in character traits.

It has long been said that should you take all the wealth in The world and evenly spread it between everyone, within a year you would start seeing those wealth inequalities again. The people who were on top before would end up on top again.

Going all in on Singer’s views would make a world where the smart, ethical, hard working and industrious become slaves to the lazy and unfruitful.

I just want those in poverty to get a leg up, it's one of the most difficult situations for those in deep poverty and a domino affect when you haven't the money for transportation or a place to call home etc. Help for those like these can create steps to get out of poverty not help them be dependent forever. 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-can-help-the-poor-the-most-getting-out-of-a-poverty-trap-2020-09-04

Or how to help and some misconceptions that people who are poor are just lazy.

https://commonbond.org/7-ways-you-can-help-fight-poverty-in-your-community/

Edited December 30, 2021 by Tacenda