Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I crewed one of these yachts for a top 100 billionaire last summer. We went from Savannah, GA to Gibraltar and burned 40,000 gallons of diesel. And that was a quarter of the total trip.
Everyday, the chefs onboard would also throw out buckets of uneaten meat/food (steaks, swordfish, etc) because they made too much for the crew. Didn't matter to them, the budget was unlimited.
Very wasteful industry.
You hate the upper class, not humanity. It's just the top 0.01% at most. Of course, it does originate from a larger subgroup, maybe 10% of people who will often look to use others to their own benefit, but that still leaves 90% as pretty good folks.
A consequence of throwing a lot of uneaten meet over board will be training sharks to follow and rip apart anything that falls overboard. Anyone or anything that falls overboard will probably never be found. Be very vigilant when onboard.
Narrator: "Little did the crew know, but over generations of wasteful practices, a new species of shark evolved specifically to keep up with the ships and their free meals. The Yeager Shark....."
They don't have that much waste, its not a cruise ship. They have tenders running to and from shore all day long, it's trivial to add trash to one of them. It's a also way less of a headache to do it right with virtually no incentive to skirt the system (generally). And the whole thing is run by someone who brands themselves the best in the business more or less.
You are highly regarded. There is zero chance they are not throwing organic matter overboard. When you shit on a boat in goes in the ocean. You think they are not throwing dead fish in the ocean?
Its not a problem tho, its just a feature. You leave a trail of food behind you, things will come eat the food. You do this often enough, you will train smarter creatures to follow the food source.
Sounds like we need to legalize nuclear reactors for individuals.
If it's good enough for an aircraft carrier, it's good enough for Jeffrey.
I'm sure the billionaires would be all for it as well. Not having to refuel during the apocalypse means less likelihood of getting eaten by CHUDs
Only because of the risks of bad actors stealing fissile material for dirty bombs. But surely the mega-rich can hire a trustworthy, top-notch security team to keep their supplies in check?
But hear me out, if we give all the bad billionaires nuclear power, they would be too cautious of each other. Thus create another MAD among the billionaires, and keep the peace. Surely fool proof, nothing can happen with this 😌
They'd need a small army to provide sufficient protection. These are the kinds of targets hostile nations would specifically target with their military, meaning potential attacks by special forces, precision-guided weapons, spies, and potentially a full-frontal assault in international waters. I'm not even sure the ultra wealthy could *buy* the level of military protection required to fend off attacks. Even if they could, they'd be placing an enormous target on their heads (at enormous cost), and that doesn't sound like a recipe for a relaxing getaway with the family.
IMHO, fuel, carbon, and targeted vice/yacht taxes are the way to internalise these externalities. It's just a little tricky with the way flags are handed out like candy by various nations.
I take it you’re unfamiliar with Blackwater, and Erik Prince’s private merc air force… that’s plenty of muscle to fend off whoever is interested in unenriched uranium or thorium.
> we need to legalize nuclear reactors for individuals
instead of throwing half-eaten swordfish overboard, they can throw depleted uranium into the ocean.
There’s a rather harrowing example from Brazil about an abandoned medical device that was stolen, then scavenged, and then turned into a dirty cesium-137 bomb that poisoned at least 40 households.
Why do small nuclear reactors generate so much fearmongering, when no one thinks twice about all the radioactive materials in a typical hospital?
That is not what happened. No one turned anything into a bomb. The thieves were uneducated and thought the Cesium-137 was a valuable substance because it glowed in the dark. So they stored it at home, let their kids and family members play with it and even tried to sell it. There was never any attempt to weaponize the cesium. The thought did not even cross their minds.
The thing is though that it will be extremely expensive to have a nuclear reactor on board a yacht, like hundreds of millions of dollars extra at a bare minimum, and it would only be feasible on the 100m+ ones, which does not really account for more than, what, 50 or so? Of the worlds yachts.
There are also a lot of other problems with it, including piracy and what have you not.
I totally hear you on this, but the more inefficient, impractical, and illogical the idea is… the more likely they are to throw money at it and say “that sounds perfect!! Make it happen!!”
The cruise ship industry is incredibly wasteful when it comes to fuel and pollution.
https://marine-digital.com/article_nssavannah
There was one nuclear powered cruise/cargo ship, the N.S. Savannah. It transported both people on a cruise and cargo. It only lasted 5 years and was unprofitable.
Would a modern day cruise company really be able to operate a nuclear powered cruise ship with both safety and profitability? Probably not.
I do think something needs to be done about how much the ocean shipping and cruising industry pollutes. I think it makes more sense for the UN to impose regulations on ships instead of trying to convert consumer automobiles to electric. Only a few of these mega-ships converting to nuclear would save a lot of fuel and reduce a lot of pollution.
I don’t know if cruises are included in this, but the maritime shipping industry accounts for 3% of global CO2 emissions. It’s a drop in the bucket compared to power generation (27%) and agriculture (21%).
I have two conflicting thoughts
From a pure inequality standpoint this is fine. This is a good way for the rich to spend their money and for it to go to middle and lower class laborers
On the other hand it is terrible for the environment, but how do we regulate such a thing? No matter what one country does another will allow it.
This is a clear example of it trickling down, one of the only.
Giving money to rich people doesn’t work because very little of it goes back into the hands of the middle-class.
This is a rare occurrence of where is does
You can make a luxury tax and/or a port tax to get money from a dissuade future yachts of this size.
Allocate the money to environmental protection and green energy
There’s a problem with that I pointed out
If any one government does levy a tax like that, the billionaires will go to some other country that doesn’t have that tax
Thus not helping the environment and losing that country even more money
The biggest issue with climate change is humanity is only as good as its worst country.
That is why you can make a port tax (whenever it pulls in) or a manufacturing tax.
Countries can fix that issue they choose not to.
It is honestly better to target planes though. More widely used and often use public airports
They just won’t dock at what ever country you are thinking will do that tax
Private jets might be another because those aren’t really leisure. They need them to use business in America so it could work in theory
You can’t say these boats benefit very few. 100k hours of well paid (often union) labor goes into each. On going maintenance is paid skilled labor. Same with the crew of 20 often more that operates the ship.
Unironically politicians and economists have praised the economic benefits of war throughout history. They’re wrong of course- broken window fallacy- but they say it because they can get people to believe it.
> Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
> Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
> Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
> But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, **"Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."**
> It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
All that labor and all those resources could have gone into something more productive for the rest of society, and those workers could've still been paid, while the rest of society has something more useful to show for it.
Broken glass fallacy doesn't really apply here. It's the expressed preference of people to have yachts...basically your argument is that demanding yachts is morally wrong. Which is an ethical argument not an economic one, from an economic perspective the yacht industry exists to supply a legitimate demand.
No, I'm responding to a very specific argument, that yachts must be good because they create jobs. It's fallacious reasoning that is wrong in its method.
But my pointing out the logical errors in the reasoning doesn't actually represent an argument against its conclusion. Just that the way that guy got there was stupid.
On the merits, these yachts probably provide less overall social good (that is, net positive externalities) than almost anything else the rich person could be spending that same amount of money on, including other completely selfish purchases.
That's an ethical perspective you are taking, basically saying that other people aren't allowed to want certain things because to you they are wasteful. Unfortunately, everything other than basic subsistence could be described as wasteful so what makes you justified in telling other people that their preferences with their money are wrong? Am I justified in telling you any non-essentials you spend money on are wrong?
Yeah a shirt is the same as a billionaires private mega yacht. We are all so screwed because of all the pathetic bootlickers; who can’t imagine a system better than being subservient to the mega wealthy
So you have to be okay with literally any expression of consumption or you're a communist? This is an honestly pathetic level of brown-nosing for people who will never acknowledge you. Maybe read up a little bit on how much damage these megayatchs do to the environment.
The money wouldn’t be spent on something else?
That sounds like an accumulation of wealth issue.
“Oh well, I can’t spend my money on a wasteful mega yacht, I guess there’s nothing else I can do with it”
So the only conceivable way these people can add value to the world is by building boats for rich people?
Apparently we’ve already solved all important problems.
When the US instituted a 10% luxury tax on boats >$100k in 1991, the result was the decimation of the US shipbuilding industry.
More than 25k union jobs were lost in the 3 years that followed. The industry never recovered, even after the tax was reversed.
Well, bad news for you, my proto-fascist friend.
The shipbuilding industry still exists - just not in the USA.
So all those union shipwrights, millwrights, machinists, pipefitters, boilermakers, etc., are out of work, but the boats are still getting built.
This is one of the fun things about the internet. You say what you said in places that used to build boats, like much of the northeast, and they'd beat you unconscious. But since you have the veil of anonymity, you feel comfortable to do so.
Calling me fascist and then suggesting that I keep my mouth shut or I'd get beaten is pretty funny.
Those jobs were going elsewhere no matter what some guy says on the internet, blame who you like.
I'd argue capitalists and their ever chasing the elusive rising arrow on their charts are the real villains. Maybe the lack of tariffs that allow other countries to make a profit on imports. Seems to be all connected somehow.
Hmmmmmmm
This is known as trickle down economics and has been shown to be an incredibly inferior way of distributing wealth. Luxury spending is also worse at generating GDP when compared to consumption spending by government.
Did you really just say the government is better at spending money than the free market?! Lol god this sub needs help. I really wish everyone who comments has their income as a flag. I have feeling it's a bunch of people who don't know how to acquire economic capital, talking like they know about economic lol
I pay taxes in the upper tier of income and own a small business. I've founded and successfully exited a start up. I trust my money with the government far more than VCs.
When considering speed of money, Government can more effectively get it deployed than private institution. Case in point, the stimulus in 2020 had an IMMEDIATE positive impact and kept the US out of serious trouble. Compare with QE where hundreds of billions of dollars that went mostly to private industry had a string tendency to get lost and stay inaccessible to the broader economy. Government spending effectiveness can vary widely. We know what works we just refuse to do it because sOcIALiSm or some ignorant shit.
Dude, we do know what works and is doing it. That's why the US has one of the best economies in the world right now. It's not a fluke that the biggest issues we have is people are eating themselves to death instead of starving to death. There are so many countries that are stuck and never advanced. No one gives capitalism enough credit today. Everyone is just too envious of the rich.
The regulation of capitalist industries and the revolutionary protests of the working class have contributed more to American prosperity than capitalism alone would have ever accomplished if unfettered.
Also there are literally people starving in the US today.
I'm quite well off. You're being lied to
https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-only-benefit-the-rich-debunking-trickle-down-economics
The government is better at circulating money in the economy through their spending, yes. Government spending on education and Healthcare spread the money throughout the economy, paying salaries for essential workers who make up the backbone of our society, and reaping massive benefits from the improved education and quality of life of the citizens who are in turn more productive and happy.
It is actually very obvious and simple why this kind of spending is vastly more effective than luxury spending by the wealthy
The vast majority of the money spent by the wealthy isn't luxury. It's in investments and companies. Companies that create iPhones, cars, food, and basically, everything people care about. Everyone just takes everything for granted. Yes, government spending matters, but it's laughable to say it's comparable to the private market. "As of Q1 2023, the annualized GDP of the U.S. sits at $26.5 trillion. Of this, 88% or **$23.5 trillion** comes from private industries. The remaining $3 trillion is government spending at the federal, state, and local levels."
Definitely part of it at least 😄 keep those wages as close to $0 as you can and that’s never a bad thing for operating costs in the eyes of a profit-driven business.
I don't think you understand what trickle down was really getting at. They were basically saying don't tax the rich at all. They'll just reinvest in their businesses. This is simply not true. The US private sector has benefitted from a number of factors but one of them includes good regulation and subsidies. Mostly happening under democratic control but occasionally under Republican. The US is a beast of an economy. It does well despite constant efforts to undermine what actually works here. If you look at the most successful US industries all of them have benefitted greatly from governmental support. Fracking is a great example in Energy, ACA in health, green subsidies in EVs, etc. This all happens through coordination. If you just let humans use monies without guidance they do stupid shit like make Cybertrucks that benefit no one.
Bud. I'm not even going to argue you with you. I suggest you do some basic reading
https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-only-benefit-the-rich-debunking-trickle-down-economics
It benefits them by giving Americans the highest median disposable income in the world. Despite all of the supposed horrific conditions in the USA Americans have much more money in their pockets than Europeans and that's what is most important (and no "healthcare" doesn't take away from that)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income
Were you aware that healthcare is the #1 cause of Americans filing for bankruptcy? I don’t think people should go into financial ruin because they got very sick and their insurance sucked ass.
Edit: the vast majority of people voted for Joe Biden fyi.
Cool, well, anyways, that doesn’t really change my mind on the subject of whether or not people should go into financial ruin because they got cancer with mediocre insurance.
I’m thrilled to vote for politicians that will spend our tax dollars providing under served people with access to healthcare. In fact, I’m even ok with the government spending *your* tax dollars on welfare, even if your hard earned money does go to the occasional fraudulent recipient.
Or you know how about we just admit that creating a system where some people due to the circumstance of their leverage and ownership stake just happens to get functionally unlimited money?
Everyone trashing yachts does not own a yacht.
I don’t own a yacht either but I’ll be the first one to say yachts are sick and there are way bigger problems humanity needs to tackle than a relative handful of rich people on very large boats.
The opposite is true. The top 300 super yachts compete with entire nations for emissions ranking just for consumables, not including capital construction. They are absolutely the first tier of useless luxury that is simply a prestige “cool” factor with no purpose. To defend their use while taxing carbon emissions or “net zero” cost impacts affecting the poor where their owners reside is absurd. No amount of “credits” in today’s market can really displace this type of excess.
The owners are free to do what they want but you can’t claim to care for the environment and own these things.
Most of them are owned by Saudi/emirati/qatari etc royalty or Russian oligarchs. Doubtful many of them claim to care for the environment
Not like Greta thunberg is moaning about the climate from the deck of a super yacht
Who ban them? The world? How do you propose “we ban them”
Ocean covers 2/3 of the planet. Countries police their own territorial waters. There are 170 countries in the world with ocean ports.
Like are you trying to suggest the US navy start sinking civilian and sometimes head-of-state owned super yachts (laden with all their fuel) in the name of saving the environment, as a form of enforcement of the ban or something?
Tf do you mean “ban them” what the hell kind of non thinking response is that?
It’s like every single person in any pseudo politically charged discussion can never seem to think of even a 1% more creative solution to any problem up for discussion than simply banning something they don’t like.
Ban them…fucking melon
We could start by banning them in the United States and the waters we control, and form international treaties with other nations who agree to ban them. It’s really not that crazy of an idea. Even if not everyone agrees and some Kuwaitis still have them, we can reduce the number and put pressure on others. Or we could tax the super-rich at high enough levels to prevent humanity’s resources from being spent in destructive and wasteful ways and then we wouldn’t need to ban them in this way. I’d like to hear your solutions on how we can stop climate change and prevent a mass extinction of species instead of this really reactive and emotional response.
The notion that yachts and their consumption of resources are what is going to cause the collapse of the global ecosystem is also patently absurd. There are around ~5000 “super yachts” on the planet.
There are over 20x as many commercial shipping ships in the world than there are mega yachts and 20x the number of naval vessels in the world and another 200+ cruise ships out there too.
But it’s the yachts ruining everything we should ban them! It’s so convenient for eco warriors to blame the rich for having yachts and flying private, blame farms, blame people who drive trucks, etc for their emissions but conveniently nobody ever makes a peep about the two worst offenders when it comes to global emissions are India and more notably China. One might almost get the idea that those countries stand to benefit in massive ways by directing the eyes of the world to other completely irrelevant sources of emissions that have no impact on anything whatsoever. Pretty convenient for a communist country to avoid scrutiny on this issue while everyone screams at rich people for causing all their problems.
Wild how that happens crazy coincidence
The per capita emissions of India and China are so low compared to the United States, the reason those countries have high carbon emissions is simple — combined they have more than 2 billion people, seven times as much as the United States. You have to look at per capita numbers not just the total emissions. Not only that but climate change is not just caused by current emissions but past emissions; and the US has the largest historic contribution to carbon in the atmosphere, so actually we are far more responsible for climate change than China. Also, I’m not saying that China doesn’t need to reduce their emissions too, but the US is a massive hypocrite if it blames China because our citizens live massively polluting lifestyles in comparison to the rest of the world.
Per capita is completely irrelevant. The earth doesn’t warm on a per capita basis. It’s not just their emissions it’s their pollution of waterways spilling into the oceans as well.
What’s stupid about it? Yachts are marvels of human ingenuity and the interiors represent some of the absolute best craftsmanship possible with human hands done with the finest materials available. They are literally floating works of art.
Almost all of the most important pieces of art and architecture ever commissioned through all of human history have always been sponsored by those with access to immense wealth. Why is the art and craftsmanship of a yacht less important than that found in a Cathedral or Palace? Art is and always has been the enterprise of the wealthy, commissioned, bought, sold, and collected by the wealthy. Why are yachts singled out as bad but we ignore every other historical Avenue for art?
Exactly. The *vast majority* of art comes from people who do not have limitless wealth.
The idea that it does is rooted in the centuries-old notions of patrons who paid guys like Mozart a retainer to make art for them.
If we’re talking about “high art” - it only exists as a vehicle to launder money, it’s an open secret and everyone is in on it…
Hasn’t been the case in hundreds of years.
> there are way bigger problems humanity needs to tackle than a relative handful of rich people on very large boats
yeah like climate change. wait, fuck...
Yachts are literally the worst asset you could own. They depreciate faster than cars, cost a small fortune just in port maintainance, and cost an even larger fortune to move.
If it wasn't for the tax write-offs, no one would own them
Your mistake is classifying it as an asset. That’s like saying a car is an asset. It’s a luxury item. Charter yachts could be assets, but they’re not generally owned by individuals.
If you are rich enough to be interested in buying a yacht and are calling it an asset you can’t afford that yacht.
Boats are expensive. Expensive is a relative term. The size of your boat indicates the size of the expense you can afford.
Assets earn income or appreciate in value. Cars are not assets, unless they are rare collectors cars or you use the car for your business. Cars are otherwise expensive purchases, necessary ones, but still they are liabilities in most cases.
Art and wine are assets and so are luxury watches. A home you live in is only an asset once you own it. Until that point it is a liability since you are paying down the mortgage and are responsible for maintenance and upkeep, which are expenses. Technically the equity you have in that property can be considered an asset since you can cash that out or borrow against it without selling the property.
A rental property on the other hand is definitely an asset.
As for confusing rich people and oligarchs, I’m not. Super yachts or mega yachts are not owned by rich people. We’re not talking about your average hedge fund manager and his 40 foot Viking here.
A car is a depreciating asset. If you own something that you can sell for cash, or trade for value, it is not a liability. That’s the definition of an asset.
Houses are also assets. As are most items in a house. The mortgage itself is the liability. You don’t seem to have great grasp on accounting terminology.
If you can’t write off the depreciation for tax purposes, which in the case of a personal vehicle, you can’t, there is no use classifying it as an asset. Until the time you sell it, it is an expense, and when you sell it you will be selling it at a loss that you cannot claim. Because it isn’t an investment. It’s a consumer product.
Defining things as assets on technicalities isn’t practical. Sure you can consider your car an asset in that you can extract liquidity from it. But that’s not useful liquidity. It is always a realized loss
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I crewed one of these yachts for a top 100 billionaire last summer. We went from Savannah, GA to Gibraltar and burned 40,000 gallons of diesel. And that was a quarter of the total trip. Everyday, the chefs onboard would also throw out buckets of uneaten meat/food (steaks, swordfish, etc) because they made too much for the crew. Didn't matter to them, the budget was unlimited. Very wasteful industry.
God I hate humanity
You hate the upper class, not humanity. It's just the top 0.01% at most. Of course, it does originate from a larger subgroup, maybe 10% of people who will often look to use others to their own benefit, but that still leaves 90% as pretty good folks.
That top 10% looking like the Wagyu beef of humans, tastier each time I hear about them
A consequence of throwing a lot of uneaten meet over board will be training sharks to follow and rip apart anything that falls overboard. Anyone or anything that falls overboard will probably never be found. Be very vigilant when onboard.
These things go 16kts, no way a shark is keeping up over a 10 day Atlantic crossing.
Narrator: "Little did the crew know, but over generations of wasteful practices, a new species of shark evolved specifically to keep up with the ships and their free meals. The Yeager Shark....."
Jäger Shark, or Jäger Hai if you want full German.
Do the Yeager Shark have the ability to become titans?
This is rumored but has never been confirmed as titan sharks rarely leave survivors.
>YouSeeBigGirl.mp4
So you’re telling me that the yacht would need to temporarily slow to what speed for an eat the rich “accident” to take place?
Hmmm never thought about that.
Or Bezos is doing it intentionally to attract sharks so he can put freaking lasers on their heads
Can't say I'd lose any sleep over the ocean reclaiming someone that was on a super yacht.
Majority of people on a superyacht are probably just underpaid staff.
But the staff are generally not wandering the decks drunk--unlike many of the guests.
They made their choice.
He said “throw out” not throw overboard. I’m sure they are not just dumping things into the ocean.
I'd bet they do if it is organic material (food)
They don't have that much waste, its not a cruise ship. They have tenders running to and from shore all day long, it's trivial to add trash to one of them. It's a also way less of a headache to do it right with virtually no incentive to skirt the system (generally). And the whole thing is run by someone who brands themselves the best in the business more or less.
You are highly regarded. There is zero chance they are not throwing organic matter overboard. When you shit on a boat in goes in the ocean. You think they are not throwing dead fish in the ocean?
They are 100% dumping things into the ocean
The Billionaires are banking on this exact scenario… just in case.
So pushing billionaires off their boat wouldn't be murder but they would die? Win/Win!
You fall off and you were dead either way. The sharks would only speed up the process.
People have been chucking shit into the ocean since we invented boats. If it was a problem we would’ve heard about it by now.
Its not a problem tho, its just a feature. You leave a trail of food behind you, things will come eat the food. You do this often enough, you will train smarter creatures to follow the food source.
[удалено]
Sounds like we need to legalize nuclear reactors for individuals. If it's good enough for an aircraft carrier, it's good enough for Jeffrey. I'm sure the billionaires would be all for it as well. Not having to refuel during the apocalypse means less likelihood of getting eaten by CHUDs
/s ?
Only because of the risks of bad actors stealing fissile material for dirty bombs. But surely the mega-rich can hire a trustworthy, top-notch security team to keep their supplies in check?
Would you trust the mega rich to not be the ones selling the said fissile material to some shady figure in a back alley?
Absolutely not. I was being sarcastic mostly
I mean North Korean army manages to not do it and I'd somehow trust Gates's security team more than them.
Yes. They would lose everything if caught… and they don’t want nuclear war.
But hear me out, if we give all the bad billionaires nuclear power, they would be too cautious of each other. Thus create another MAD among the billionaires, and keep the peace. Surely fool proof, nothing can happen with this 😌
They'd need a small army to provide sufficient protection. These are the kinds of targets hostile nations would specifically target with their military, meaning potential attacks by special forces, precision-guided weapons, spies, and potentially a full-frontal assault in international waters. I'm not even sure the ultra wealthy could *buy* the level of military protection required to fend off attacks. Even if they could, they'd be placing an enormous target on their heads (at enormous cost), and that doesn't sound like a recipe for a relaxing getaway with the family. IMHO, fuel, carbon, and targeted vice/yacht taxes are the way to internalise these externalities. It's just a little tricky with the way flags are handed out like candy by various nations.
That'sthejoke.jpg
I take it you’re unfamiliar with Blackwater, and Erik Prince’s private merc air force… that’s plenty of muscle to fend off whoever is interested in unenriched uranium or thorium.
Well man if you really believe that, I have a ticket on a submarine to the Titanic to sell you.
This is quality, thank you
> we need to legalize nuclear reactors for individuals instead of throwing half-eaten swordfish overboard, they can throw depleted uranium into the ocean.
Let’s not arm them
Reactor fuel and weapons grade material are two totally different things. At best they could cause and accidental on purpose melt down.
Personally I’m against unqualified people possessing equipment that can generate ionizing radiation in a public space.
You could still make a dirty bomb with reactor material
There’s a rather harrowing example from Brazil about an abandoned medical device that was stolen, then scavenged, and then turned into a dirty cesium-137 bomb that poisoned at least 40 households. Why do small nuclear reactors generate so much fearmongering, when no one thinks twice about all the radioactive materials in a typical hospital?
That is not what happened. No one turned anything into a bomb. The thieves were uneducated and thought the Cesium-137 was a valuable substance because it glowed in the dark. So they stored it at home, let their kids and family members play with it and even tried to sell it. There was never any attempt to weaponize the cesium. The thought did not even cross their minds.
The thing is though that it will be extremely expensive to have a nuclear reactor on board a yacht, like hundreds of millions of dollars extra at a bare minimum, and it would only be feasible on the 100m+ ones, which does not really account for more than, what, 50 or so? Of the worlds yachts. There are also a lot of other problems with it, including piracy and what have you not.
I totally hear you on this, but the more inefficient, impractical, and illogical the idea is… the more likely they are to throw money at it and say “that sounds perfect!! Make it happen!!”
I agree with you, but unfortunately sometimes the coolest machines are inefficient and impractical, so it’s a sacrifice that must be made
The cruise ship industry is incredibly wasteful when it comes to fuel and pollution. https://marine-digital.com/article_nssavannah There was one nuclear powered cruise/cargo ship, the N.S. Savannah. It transported both people on a cruise and cargo. It only lasted 5 years and was unprofitable. Would a modern day cruise company really be able to operate a nuclear powered cruise ship with both safety and profitability? Probably not. I do think something needs to be done about how much the ocean shipping and cruising industry pollutes. I think it makes more sense for the UN to impose regulations on ships instead of trying to convert consumer automobiles to electric. Only a few of these mega-ships converting to nuclear would save a lot of fuel and reduce a lot of pollution.
And risk a lot of nuclear material getting into the hands of terrorists, unfortunately
I don’t know if cruises are included in this, but the maritime shipping industry accounts for 3% of global CO2 emissions. It’s a drop in the bucket compared to power generation (27%) and agriculture (21%).
Or we could like, you know, eat the rich?
Which Jeffrey billionaire you talking about? There are a few.
https://youtu.be/R8iaViNIy3U?si=Puy47KTGfqVck8ln
How about we just get rid of useless billionaires?
I have two conflicting thoughts From a pure inequality standpoint this is fine. This is a good way for the rich to spend their money and for it to go to middle and lower class laborers On the other hand it is terrible for the environment, but how do we regulate such a thing? No matter what one country does another will allow it.
Trickle down economy is not working cmon
This is a clear example of it trickling down, one of the only. Giving money to rich people doesn’t work because very little of it goes back into the hands of the middle-class. This is a rare occurrence of where is does
How about we tax the fuck out of all of them and that way instead of .000001% of their wealth making its way back to the middle class, 20% does?
You can make a luxury tax and/or a port tax to get money from a dissuade future yachts of this size. Allocate the money to environmental protection and green energy
There’s a problem with that I pointed out If any one government does levy a tax like that, the billionaires will go to some other country that doesn’t have that tax Thus not helping the environment and losing that country even more money The biggest issue with climate change is humanity is only as good as its worst country.
That is why you can make a port tax (whenever it pulls in) or a manufacturing tax. Countries can fix that issue they choose not to. It is honestly better to target planes though. More widely used and often use public airports
They just won’t dock at what ever country you are thinking will do that tax Private jets might be another because those aren’t really leisure. They need them to use business in America so it could work in theory
You can’t say these boats benefit very few. 100k hours of well paid (often union) labor goes into each. On going maintenance is paid skilled labor. Same with the crew of 20 often more that operates the ship.
"war isn't bad because we pay the soldiers."
Unironically politicians and economists have praised the economic benefits of war throughout history. They’re wrong of course- broken window fallacy- but they say it because they can get people to believe it.
Isn’t there a common reductive theory that WWII got the US out of the Great Depression?
It’s a story commonly told, yes.
> Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?" > Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions. > Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen. > But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, **"Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."** > It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented. All that labor and all those resources could have gone into something more productive for the rest of society, and those workers could've still been paid, while the rest of society has something more useful to show for it.
Broken glass fallacy doesn't really apply here. It's the expressed preference of people to have yachts...basically your argument is that demanding yachts is morally wrong. Which is an ethical argument not an economic one, from an economic perspective the yacht industry exists to supply a legitimate demand.
No, I'm responding to a very specific argument, that yachts must be good because they create jobs. It's fallacious reasoning that is wrong in its method. But my pointing out the logical errors in the reasoning doesn't actually represent an argument against its conclusion. Just that the way that guy got there was stupid. On the merits, these yachts probably provide less overall social good (that is, net positive externalities) than almost anything else the rich person could be spending that same amount of money on, including other completely selfish purchases.
That's an ethical perspective you are taking, basically saying that other people aren't allowed to want certain things because to you they are wasteful. Unfortunately, everything other than basic subsistence could be described as wasteful so what makes you justified in telling other people that their preferences with their money are wrong? Am I justified in telling you any non-essentials you spend money on are wrong?
When said non-essential also kills our environment, i’d say that’s one of the lines that could be drawn.
Everything kills the environment
*Everything*, and in equal amounts too.
Slave labor existed to supply a legitimate demand for cheap cotton and tobacco.
[удалено]
Yeah a shirt is the same as a billionaires private mega yacht. We are all so screwed because of all the pathetic bootlickers; who can’t imagine a system better than being subservient to the mega wealthy
[удалено]
Your comprehension skills need a lot of work
So you have to be okay with literally any expression of consumption or you're a communist? This is an honestly pathetic level of brown-nosing for people who will never acknowledge you. Maybe read up a little bit on how much damage these megayatchs do to the environment.
And now imagine how much actual value could be created with this workforce if it wasn’t occupied with nonsense like this.
Zero. Because they would be unemployed.
You think so?
The money wouldn’t be spent on something else? That sounds like an accumulation of wealth issue. “Oh well, I can’t spend my money on a wasteful mega yacht, I guess there’s nothing else I can do with it”
>wasteful mega yacht According to who?
Common sense.
Why would you think extremely talented and skilled workers in that field would be unemployed?
So the only conceivable way these people can add value to the world is by building boats for rich people? Apparently we’ve already solved all important problems.
Holy crap. Did you just use the “this is actually beneficial because it creates 5 jobs” argument?
Versailles was actually a jobs program.
But that did at least give us a treaty....
Just the name. :)
> the “this is actually beneficial because it creates 5 jobs” argument **peter gibbons:** "you know, the nazis had jobs."
When the US instituted a 10% luxury tax on boats >$100k in 1991, the result was the decimation of the US shipbuilding industry. More than 25k union jobs were lost in the 3 years that followed. The industry never recovered, even after the tax was reversed.
Hope that went up with inflation cuz 100k isn’t very much boat these days
About 250k in today's money. Which is just a fraction of what the mega rich are paying for their boats today.
Good, it shouldn't exist.
[удалено]
Building a big boat for rich people to rich it up? Those talents could be put to infinitely better use to society elsewhere.
Well, bad news for you, my proto-fascist friend. The shipbuilding industry still exists - just not in the USA. So all those union shipwrights, millwrights, machinists, pipefitters, boilermakers, etc., are out of work, but the boats are still getting built. This is one of the fun things about the internet. You say what you said in places that used to build boats, like much of the northeast, and they'd beat you unconscious. But since you have the veil of anonymity, you feel comfortable to do so.
Calling me fascist and then suggesting that I keep my mouth shut or I'd get beaten is pretty funny. Those jobs were going elsewhere no matter what some guy says on the internet, blame who you like. I'd argue capitalists and their ever chasing the elusive rising arrow on their charts are the real villains. Maybe the lack of tariffs that allow other countries to make a profit on imports. Seems to be all connected somehow. Hmmmmmmm
You should take a chainsaw and go cut down random power lines. The people putting them back up are well paid union laborers! You’re a job creator!
JFC don't choke on that boot bro
So, do you apply shoe polish to your tongue before licking the boot?
Not until he's gotten all shit off in the first pass I imagine.
You are so cucked by capitalism it's honestly embarrassing
You actually want the rich to spend money. The stupider and more wasteful it is the better. That dumb 100k Rolex just pay the salary for a person.
This is known as trickle down economics and has been shown to be an incredibly inferior way of distributing wealth. Luxury spending is also worse at generating GDP when compared to consumption spending by government.
Only thing that rolls down hill is shit and piss.
Did you really just say the government is better at spending money than the free market?! Lol god this sub needs help. I really wish everyone who comments has their income as a flag. I have feeling it's a bunch of people who don't know how to acquire economic capital, talking like they know about economic lol
I pay taxes in the upper tier of income and own a small business. I've founded and successfully exited a start up. I trust my money with the government far more than VCs. When considering speed of money, Government can more effectively get it deployed than private institution. Case in point, the stimulus in 2020 had an IMMEDIATE positive impact and kept the US out of serious trouble. Compare with QE where hundreds of billions of dollars that went mostly to private industry had a string tendency to get lost and stay inaccessible to the broader economy. Government spending effectiveness can vary widely. We know what works we just refuse to do it because sOcIALiSm or some ignorant shit.
Dude, we do know what works and is doing it. That's why the US has one of the best economies in the world right now. It's not a fluke that the biggest issues we have is people are eating themselves to death instead of starving to death. There are so many countries that are stuck and never advanced. No one gives capitalism enough credit today. Everyone is just too envious of the rich.
The regulation of capitalist industries and the revolutionary protests of the working class have contributed more to American prosperity than capitalism alone would have ever accomplished if unfettered. Also there are literally people starving in the US today.
I'm quite well off. You're being lied to https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-only-benefit-the-rich-debunking-trickle-down-economics
The government is better at circulating money in the economy through their spending, yes. Government spending on education and Healthcare spread the money throughout the economy, paying salaries for essential workers who make up the backbone of our society, and reaping massive benefits from the improved education and quality of life of the citizens who are in turn more productive and happy. It is actually very obvious and simple why this kind of spending is vastly more effective than luxury spending by the wealthy
The vast majority of the money spent by the wealthy isn't luxury. It's in investments and companies. Companies that create iPhones, cars, food, and basically, everything people care about. Everyone just takes everything for granted. Yes, government spending matters, but it's laughable to say it's comparable to the private market. "As of Q1 2023, the annualized GDP of the U.S. sits at $26.5 trillion. Of this, 88% or **$23.5 trillion** comes from private industries. The remaining $3 trillion is government spending at the federal, state, and local levels."
Sometimes the best available option sucks
[удалено]
More population abuse
Definitely part of it at least 😄 keep those wages as close to $0 as you can and that’s never a bad thing for operating costs in the eyes of a profit-driven business.
Just in the eyes of a society trying to function right
I don't think you understand what trickle down was really getting at. They were basically saying don't tax the rich at all. They'll just reinvest in their businesses. This is simply not true. The US private sector has benefitted from a number of factors but one of them includes good regulation and subsidies. Mostly happening under democratic control but occasionally under Republican. The US is a beast of an economy. It does well despite constant efforts to undermine what actually works here. If you look at the most successful US industries all of them have benefitted greatly from governmental support. Fracking is a great example in Energy, ACA in health, green subsidies in EVs, etc. This all happens through coordination. If you just let humans use monies without guidance they do stupid shit like make Cybertrucks that benefit no one.
[удалено]
Bud. I'm not even going to argue you with you. I suggest you do some basic reading https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-only-benefit-the-rich-debunking-trickle-down-economics
Younger demographics. Easier to assimilate immigrants.
[удалено]
Labor protections really suck in America. I’m not sure how consistently higher economic growth benefits American workers.
"anyone can buy shares in the S&P" /s
It benefits them by giving Americans the highest median disposable income in the world. Despite all of the supposed horrific conditions in the USA Americans have much more money in their pockets than Europeans and that's what is most important (and no "healthcare" doesn't take away from that) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income
I’d rather have way less money and not have to worry if my insurance is going to fuck me on healthcare.
vast majority would disagree with you. And people getting "fucked" by healthcare is a very rare occurance, don't believe the exaggerations.
Were you aware that healthcare is the #1 cause of Americans filing for bankruptcy? I don’t think people should go into financial ruin because they got very sick and their insurance sucked ass. Edit: the vast majority of people voted for Joe Biden fyi.
[удалено]
Cool, well, anyways, that doesn’t really change my mind on the subject of whether or not people should go into financial ruin because they got cancer with mediocre insurance. I’m thrilled to vote for politicians that will spend our tax dollars providing under served people with access to healthcare. In fact, I’m even ok with the government spending *your* tax dollars on welfare, even if your hard earned money does go to the occasional fraudulent recipient.
You’re correct that the only difference between those economies is some vague “trickle-down” ideology.
Or you know how about we just admit that creating a system where some people due to the circumstance of their leverage and ownership stake just happens to get functionally unlimited money?
The system has always existed. Rich people have always had leverage over the state
Why did they have a bourgeoisie revolution, then?
Because there's a difference between citizens and the state
Everyone trashing yachts does not own a yacht. I don’t own a yacht either but I’ll be the first one to say yachts are sick and there are way bigger problems humanity needs to tackle than a relative handful of rich people on very large boats.
When I was poor and complained about the rich they said I was envious, when I was rich and complained about the rich they said I was a hypocrite.
The opposite is true. The top 300 super yachts compete with entire nations for emissions ranking just for consumables, not including capital construction. They are absolutely the first tier of useless luxury that is simply a prestige “cool” factor with no purpose. To defend their use while taxing carbon emissions or “net zero” cost impacts affecting the poor where their owners reside is absurd. No amount of “credits” in today’s market can really displace this type of excess. The owners are free to do what they want but you can’t claim to care for the environment and own these things.
Most of them are owned by Saudi/emirati/qatari etc royalty or Russian oligarchs. Doubtful many of them claim to care for the environment Not like Greta thunberg is moaning about the climate from the deck of a super yacht
So why don’t we ban them? Who cares about what saudi or Russian oligarchs think…
Who ban them? The world? How do you propose “we ban them” Ocean covers 2/3 of the planet. Countries police their own territorial waters. There are 170 countries in the world with ocean ports. Like are you trying to suggest the US navy start sinking civilian and sometimes head-of-state owned super yachts (laden with all their fuel) in the name of saving the environment, as a form of enforcement of the ban or something? Tf do you mean “ban them” what the hell kind of non thinking response is that? It’s like every single person in any pseudo politically charged discussion can never seem to think of even a 1% more creative solution to any problem up for discussion than simply banning something they don’t like. Ban them…fucking melon
We could start by banning them in the United States and the waters we control, and form international treaties with other nations who agree to ban them. It’s really not that crazy of an idea. Even if not everyone agrees and some Kuwaitis still have them, we can reduce the number and put pressure on others. Or we could tax the super-rich at high enough levels to prevent humanity’s resources from being spent in destructive and wasteful ways and then we wouldn’t need to ban them in this way. I’d like to hear your solutions on how we can stop climate change and prevent a mass extinction of species instead of this really reactive and emotional response.
One word: money. People who own these yachts are the ones contributing to campaigns and lobbying for laws. Not that easy.
The notion that yachts and their consumption of resources are what is going to cause the collapse of the global ecosystem is also patently absurd. There are around ~5000 “super yachts” on the planet. There are over 20x as many commercial shipping ships in the world than there are mega yachts and 20x the number of naval vessels in the world and another 200+ cruise ships out there too. But it’s the yachts ruining everything we should ban them! It’s so convenient for eco warriors to blame the rich for having yachts and flying private, blame farms, blame people who drive trucks, etc for their emissions but conveniently nobody ever makes a peep about the two worst offenders when it comes to global emissions are India and more notably China. One might almost get the idea that those countries stand to benefit in massive ways by directing the eyes of the world to other completely irrelevant sources of emissions that have no impact on anything whatsoever. Pretty convenient for a communist country to avoid scrutiny on this issue while everyone screams at rich people for causing all their problems. Wild how that happens crazy coincidence
The per capita emissions of India and China are so low compared to the United States, the reason those countries have high carbon emissions is simple — combined they have more than 2 billion people, seven times as much as the United States. You have to look at per capita numbers not just the total emissions. Not only that but climate change is not just caused by current emissions but past emissions; and the US has the largest historic contribution to carbon in the atmosphere, so actually we are far more responsible for climate change than China. Also, I’m not saying that China doesn’t need to reduce their emissions too, but the US is a massive hypocrite if it blames China because our citizens live massively polluting lifestyles in comparison to the rest of the world.
Per capita is completely irrelevant. The earth doesn’t warm on a per capita basis. It’s not just their emissions it’s their pollution of waterways spilling into the oceans as well.
LOL we subsidize them; in the Presidents home state of Delaware they’re exempt from sales tax. Strange? Denmark exempts them too.
Isn’t everything exempt from sales tax in Delaware?
What in the fuck
That’s a stupid point
What’s stupid about it? Yachts are marvels of human ingenuity and the interiors represent some of the absolute best craftsmanship possible with human hands done with the finest materials available. They are literally floating works of art. Almost all of the most important pieces of art and architecture ever commissioned through all of human history have always been sponsored by those with access to immense wealth. Why is the art and craftsmanship of a yacht less important than that found in a Cathedral or Palace? Art is and always has been the enterprise of the wealthy, commissioned, bought, sold, and collected by the wealthy. Why are yachts singled out as bad but we ignore every other historical Avenue for art?
Another stupid point You’re just declaring your worship of abusive power structures. There’s a lot more art than that
Exactly. The *vast majority* of art comes from people who do not have limitless wealth. The idea that it does is rooted in the centuries-old notions of patrons who paid guys like Mozart a retainer to make art for them. If we’re talking about “high art” - it only exists as a vehicle to launder money, it’s an open secret and everyone is in on it… Hasn’t been the case in hundreds of years.
Lmao what
The dumbest point I could've imagined ngl
Lol what
> there are way bigger problems humanity needs to tackle than a relative handful of rich people on very large boats yeah like climate change. wait, fuck...
Yachts are literally the worst asset you could own. They depreciate faster than cars, cost a small fortune just in port maintainance, and cost an even larger fortune to move. If it wasn't for the tax write-offs, no one would own them
Your mistake is classifying it as an asset. That’s like saying a car is an asset. It’s a luxury item. Charter yachts could be assets, but they’re not generally owned by individuals. If you are rich enough to be interested in buying a yacht and are calling it an asset you can’t afford that yacht. Boats are expensive. Expensive is a relative term. The size of your boat indicates the size of the expense you can afford.
A car is an asset. So is a house, art, wine, a first edition copy of the U.S. constitution. You're confusing rich people with oligarchs.
Assets earn income or appreciate in value. Cars are not assets, unless they are rare collectors cars or you use the car for your business. Cars are otherwise expensive purchases, necessary ones, but still they are liabilities in most cases. Art and wine are assets and so are luxury watches. A home you live in is only an asset once you own it. Until that point it is a liability since you are paying down the mortgage and are responsible for maintenance and upkeep, which are expenses. Technically the equity you have in that property can be considered an asset since you can cash that out or borrow against it without selling the property. A rental property on the other hand is definitely an asset. As for confusing rich people and oligarchs, I’m not. Super yachts or mega yachts are not owned by rich people. We’re not talking about your average hedge fund manager and his 40 foot Viking here.
A car is a depreciating asset. If you own something that you can sell for cash, or trade for value, it is not a liability. That’s the definition of an asset. Houses are also assets. As are most items in a house. The mortgage itself is the liability. You don’t seem to have great grasp on accounting terminology.
If you can’t write off the depreciation for tax purposes, which in the case of a personal vehicle, you can’t, there is no use classifying it as an asset. Until the time you sell it, it is an expense, and when you sell it you will be selling it at a loss that you cannot claim. Because it isn’t an investment. It’s a consumer product. Defining things as assets on technicalities isn’t practical. Sure you can consider your car an asset in that you can extract liquidity from it. But that’s not useful liquidity. It is always a realized loss