Jeff Bezos Space Tourist

[Innula Zenovka]

2 minutes ago, Orwar said:

We used to have a mustard factory in my home town, that let build a quite pretty brick building to house their production and offices, and became quite the thing of pride for the locals .. Then the Swedish government tightened the grip. Now the 'local' mustard is produced in Poland. And then the company was bought up by Kraft. Now the old brand name is just the product name. On the bright side, the pretty factory building could be levelled so that a super-expensive and utterly atrocious new housing complex could be built that the target audience can't afford to live in without slinging drugs or selling sex on the side of their university studies. Yay?

So who's gained and lost in this?   The workers in the original factory (however many people that was) have lost out, though the workers in the Polish factory have gained from it, thus at least partially cancelling that out.     

The locals who enjoyed looking at the old factory building have lost out, though locals who supply goods and services to the residents of the new housing complex (and those who built it, of course) have gained by the deal (as have those who want to buy the drugs and other services offered by some of the residents, I guess).     

All the shareholders involved are presumably content with the deal, as are the people who actually buy and use the mustard.

It's not obvious to me, as an outsider, that the change is wholly for the worse, though some people obviously have lost out from it.

 

[Chroma Starlight]

2 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

So who's gained and lost in this?   The workers in the original factory (however many people that was) have lost out, though the workers in the Polish factory have gained from it, thus at least partially cancelling that out.     

It's not obvious to me, as an outsider, that the change is wholly for the worse, though some people obviously have lost out from it.

Maybe the worker safety or salary compensation standards are lower, or the environmental protection enforcement somehow more lax, or something that changes the equation. If you make the equation more efficient, don't they give you a bonus or a promotion? You've just skimmed the fat from the system. Now it's all yours.

[Lyssa Greymoon]

1 hour ago, Ayeleeon said:

This is basically saying that labour isn't worth much but the labourer should be paid more than that. I disagree, I think labour is valuable, and that if the government stopped interfering in the market, the market would reflect that fact.

That's delightfully naive.

[Ayeleeon]

1 hour ago, Sid Nagy said:

You are describing communism.
Communists always tried to hide their status behind the word socialism. But they were no socialists at all.

Under communism there is no private property at all, and the government is a dictatorship. Under socialism some private property is allowed however industrial production is owned and managed by the state, which is often a Democracy. 

In neither situation is the greater efficiency of the free market allowed to exist.

[Finite]

4 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

That's delightfully naive.

Especially considering the government has been relatively hands off the past 40 years compared to the 40 years prior to that and pay has stagnated or gone down. 

[Ayeleeon]

5 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

That's delightfully naive.

What is naive is believing that the government can improve on the free market, especially in light of the fact that so far, government interference has always been aimed at helping the wealthy. Why we think that suddenly we can get the state to help the poor is beyond me. 

[Sid Nagy]

5 minutes ago, Ayeleeon said:

Under communism there is no private property at all, and the government is a dictatorship. Under socialism some private property is allowed however industrial production is owned and managed by the state, which is often a Democracy. 

In neither situation is the greater efficiency of the free market allowed to exist.

I have been a social democrat\socialist my whole life here in the EU and I'm certain I'm far better informed about what socialism and social democracy is. I tried to explain, but if you think it is differently: kudos for you, but you're simply wrongly informed.

Edited July 22, 2021 by Sid Nagy

[Finite]

2 minutes ago, Ayeleeon said:

Under communism there is no private property at all, and the government is a dictatorship. Under socialism some private property is allowed however industrial production is owned and managed by the state, which is often a Democracy. 

In neither situation is the greater efficiency of the free market allowed to exist.

Hmm so far you based your ideal free market on labels (of all things) yet haven't really demonstrated how exactly the US isn't already a free market or even how the more left leaning EU isn't. I would guess you aren't American since you used the word "labour" when we say labor here. So it's possible you have no idea of the comparison between pre and post deregulation and are looking through an entirely different lens than what people are actually experiencing here.

[Ayeleeon]

14 minutes ago, Finite said:

Especially considering the government has been relatively hands off the past 40 years compared to the 40 years prior to that and pay has stagnated or gone down. 

The government is only hands off in terms of regulations aimed certain practices limiting the actions of large corporations.

Wages meanwhile have gone up, but not up relative to inflation you say, very true, but government policy creates inflation. Inflation discourages savings, why not spend it now when you can get more for it. Also it over time reduces the actual cost of the debt. 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Ayeleeon

[Moondira]

11 minutes ago, Ayeleeon said:

What is naive is believing that the government can improve on the free market

Yeah, the free market is like heaven and the businessmen are saints. They would never inflate prices unnecessarily and make us pay more for goods, or connivingly trounce on their competition. They want fairness and no doubt think making as much money any way they can is a sin. Also, they care about the environment and would never trash it or externalize costs so that we have to pay for environmental degradation.

They would never hide their money overseas so as not to pay taxes, or pay 3rd world workers peanuts so they could reap profits off them.
The free market is wonderful, and we should never regulate it (oh noes, those laws, that control, the lack of freedom!)

 

[Ayeleeon]

16 minutes ago, Finite said:

I would guess you aren't American since you used the word "labour" when we say labor here.

LOL, I generally use the same spelling as in the post I am quoting, unless the quote spelling is wrong. In this case that spelling is not wrong, just not the common usage in the US

[Ayeleeon]

13 minutes ago, Moondira said:

Also, they care about the environment and would never trash it or externalize costs

I will just pick one of your many objections.

Dumping industrial waste on someone else's property is theft, and should be treated as such. As I said earlier, the government's role should be limited to protecting the life liberty and property of the people. If a chemical plant allows it's waste products to get on your land, the state should punish that company and insure your property is restored, this is how a true free market works. No one can take something of value from you without your consent. Instead governments have allowed companies to dump thier trash, and in so doing steal value from other people. They have done this on the name of the common good, but it is only good for the people making a profit from it. 

[Sukubia Scarmon]

1 hour ago, Orwar said:

The wonderful thing with globalisation is that anyone can apply for citizenship or register their company in a nation wherein the taxes are lower, and place their production in countries where the regulations are more lax when it comes to the whole 'human rights' thing or 'environmental tax' shenanigans. Doesn't matter what laws Germany or the EU implement to protect the workers, if it's made so tough the employers will set up shop in Taiwan instead and just ship it over to the consumers in Europe. And then suddenly all that changed was that German employees went from contributing via taxation to needing unemployment aid, and the state made a total deficit on the whole thing.

   We used to have a mustard factory in my home town, that let build a quite pretty brick building to house their production and offices, and became quite the thing of pride for the locals .. Then the Swedish government tightened the grip. Now the 'local' mustard is produced in Poland. And then the company was bought up by Kraft. Now the old brand name is just the product name. On the bright side, the pretty factory building could be levelled so that a super-expensive and utterly atrocious new housing complex could be built that the target audience can't afford to live in without slinging drugs or selling sex on the side of their university studies. Yay?

Could that not be offset by making it more lucrative to stay in the country? Like, lowered tax for goods that are produced there, higher for imported from outside? I'm clearly no expert on the matter, I'm not even in the amateur-range I'd say.
And yeah, I am aware that it'd most likely end up in higher prices for the stuff because most companies who'd leave the country for cheaper workers would certainly not shoulder the cost but give it to their customers to bear. But that only goes so far, as after a certain point, people would stop buying the more expensive product, I'd think? 

What would you do? Or would you say everything should stay as it is?

[Innula Zenovka]

2 hours ago, Ayeleeon said:

I think labour is valuable, and that if the government stopped interfering in the market, the market would reflect that fact.

Can you expand on that a little, please?     On the face of it, you seem to be suggesting that the government is either artificially reducing the number of jobs in particular industries or artificially inflating the number of people competing for jobs, but I'm not sure if that's what you do, in fact, mean.

Or do you mean governments making it more difficult for workers to unionise, which certainly might tend to deflate wages and lead to poor working conditions?

[Ayla Nightingale]

On 7/21/2021 at 10:46 AM, Ayeleeon said:

There seems to be this general feeling that if rich people develop something, that it will be of no benefit to the common person. But consider railroad trains. Every day millions of people get to work on a commuter train. We all benefit from lower costs of the goods we buy because of the efficiency of rail freight shipping. In India the rail system is packed with people every day providing an essential service to the entire nation. Virtually everyone benefits from the existence of railroads, yet in the early days of railroading it was rich men who developed the industry, and used it to become even richer. They have all since died, but we today live better lives because of their work.

The problem isn't merely "wealthy man spends money, grab your pitch forks everyone!" that's over simplifying it.  I don't care that he spent his own money doing something lots would consider frivolous.  It's a once in a life time experience,  he could afford it, he did it, good for him.  I will even give him a little credit for pushing the tech out some and making the private industry space race more competitive, that's healthy.  

The problem is, that man is the wealthiest person the world has ever known.  He is  not just a billionaire, but a hundred - billionaire.  And it's not just that he has a MASSIVE amount of money, but that he is able to take advantage of corporate tax laws that let people like him just make massive money passively, without paying the same share of taxes the working classes does.  He is extremely privileged, arguably the most privileged person to have ever lived.  He will not live long enough to spend all his wealth, his family will not live long enough to spend it.   And he didn't get that money merely from working hard and having a good idea or work ethic.  He got it by exploiting his work force who have to pee in water bottles in the warehouses, who faint from heat stroke.  He got it by taking advantage of tax laws that only serve to make men like him more wealthy. 

The worst part of all is he does this while we are at a point in the pandemic where 500k Americans are facing foreclosure or eviction and would be homeless if it weren't for the moratorium on evictions right now.  We're in a housing crisis where a working class person, working full time at minimum wage can't afford a 2 bedroom apartment anywhere in the US.  This was poor timing at best, morally reprehensible at worst.  

There are plenty of people who are wealthy but also recognize the responsibility to mankind that wealth gives them. Bill gates and  his foundation, and his work on the vaccine, eradicating malaria in 3rd world countries.  Warren buffet too.  They give, where they find they can contribute and benefit mankind the most, and they are still wealthy.  They will never not be wealthy due to their humanitarian work. 

Mr Bezos could have gone to space a thousand times and done a massive amount of charitable work and still be insanely wealthy.  Instead.... he chose to do something fun for himself.  

Ps please forgive spelling errors, I'm also working trying to do two things at once. lol

 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Loelia Pancake

[Innula Zenovka]

14 minutes ago, Ayeleeon said:

I will just pick one of your many objections.

Dumping industrial waste on someone else's property is theft, and should be treated as such. As I said earlier, the government's role should be limited to protecting the life liberty and property of the people. If a chemical plant allows it's waste products to get on your land, the state should punish that company and insure your property is restored, this is how a true free market works. No one can take something of value from you without your consent. Instead governments have allowed companies to dump thier trash, and in so doing steal value from other people. They have done this on the name of the common good, but it is only good for the people making a profit from it. 

A proper free market, I would have thought, would allow landlords to let the market decide how their land is used -- landlords want to maximise their return, and will charge what the market will bear for that particular piece of land, which will be determined by what the land is suitable for and how great the demand actually is for that type of land.

The only other parties with a legal interest in what the landlords new tenants do, besides the landlords, are other landowners whose own lands may be affected by pollution from the nearby chemical factory and, as you suggest, they can already pursue their claims in a civil court.

 

[Ayeleeon]

17 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Can you expand on that a little, please?

Mostly the government sets policies that increase the cost of living to a point where it outpaces wages. Things like artificially raising the price of land through zoning laws, and regulations that raise costs of consumer products, subsidies and price supports, as well as inflationary policies that insure prices go up over time. Without such interference wages would in fact be lower, but people could afford to live at those lower rates.

[Orwar]

1 hour ago, Innula Zenovka said:

So who's gained and lost in this?   The workers in the original factory (however many people that was) have lost out, though the workers in the Polish factory have gained from it, thus at least partially cancelling that out.

   The local workers lost out, as they lost their jobs.

   The workers abroad getting a job does not in any way, shape, or form benefit the government or the populace of the country that lost its employer.

   The workers abroad arguably 'won' as they got employment, but what protections do they have from their government's regulations, if their country was selected as a place of production? It's no well-kept secret that there are many, many European and American companies operating in countries where they can get away with child labour and outright exposing their workers to dangerous chemicals and machinery.

   The employers may benefit from it in the long run, as in time, the cheaper labour and less worry about taxes and environmental fees will offset the cost of building a new factory.

   Those nations who consider themselves 'forward' in humanitarianism and environmentalism outright lose in every aspect - shot themselves in the foot, as it were. And if one is of the opinion that human rights and the environment ought to be protected, you've lost.

   Congratulations - your people are now legally protected to take bathroom breaks at the work they no longer have. Progress! 

25 minutes ago, Sukubia Scarmon said:

What would you do? Or would you say everything should stay as it is?

   Sit back, relax, and enjoy the show as civilisation continues its struggle to figure out how to function. 

   I'm not pro-isolationist to the point that I think that the global infrastructure should be torn down, it's an excellent means to share innovations in medicine and science, and exchange cultural and philosophical ideas - but if humanity at large could survive up until 170 years ago without ever consuming anything that didn't come from within a few miles of their homes, I fail to see the reasoning behind shipping avocados and bananas back and forth across the planet. Not that long ago, a pineapple was such an exclusive item in Europe that it was practically worth its weight in saffron (well, in the 18th century a pineapple cost the equivalent of $8,000, I'm too lazy to go find the actual weight of an 18thC pineapple and the saffron prices of the period converted to modern currency and do the whole math thing), today even a social beneficiary can stuff themselves seven days a week on pineapple if they so choose.

   I wouldn't go as far as to suggest the Pol Pot route of sending the people into the woods to clear way for local agriculture, but add a harsh tax to shipping both to compensate for the climate impact by discouraging people from eating the frozen pizzas whose ingredients' shipping on average would amount to a round-the-globe trip (and put the accumulated tax revenue therefrom to doing something positive, like building nuclear power plants - the greenest energy of them all), and to promote local production that increases local employment - globally. 

   The caveat is that to enforce such a thing you'd either need to convince everyone that it's the right thing to do, and for everyone to choose to do the right thing - or that you'd have to be an omnipresent, globally authoritarian overlord with the means to enforce it.

   For as long as people in general want 'someone else' or 'the rich' to fix the world, we're going nowhere.

[Innula Zenovka]

23 minutes ago, Ayeleeon said:

Mostly the government sets policies that increase the cost of living to a point where it outpaces wages. Things like artificially raising the price of land through zoning laws, and regulations that raise costs of consumer products, subsidies and price supports, as well as inflationary policies that insure prices go up over time. Without such interference wages would in fact be lower, but people could afford to live at those lower rates.

Do you not think that supply and demand applies to labour as much as with any commodity?   Depending on the nature of the work and the nature of the workforce, it's either a buyers' or sellers' market.    If there's a shortage of baristas or plumbers available for work, those who are looking for work can command a better price for their services than if there's an oversupply of people with those skills, surely?

Zoning laws certainly decrease the amount of land available for housing or other development (the "green belt" around London is a prime example), thus hugely benefitting other landowners (who can charge premium rents and prices for the use of their land), though that's not, in itself, an argument for or against zoning in any particular instance.

If employers can't afford to pay their staff enough,  they'll lose out to the more efficient and successful employers who are able to outbid them, surely, and go out of business while their better-run competitors succeed at their expense.    

That's how the market economy is supposed to work, isn't it?

[Finite]

41 minutes ago, Ayeleeon said:

Mostly the government sets policies that increase the cost of living to a point where it outpaces wages. Things like artificially raising the price of land through zoning laws, and regulations that raise costs of consumer products, subsidies and price supports, as well as inflationary policies that insure prices go up over time. Without such interference wages would in fact be lower, but people could afford to live at those lower rates.

Zoning is state and local level. Are we talking about state or federal here? A couple times you've countered people with irrelevant points. The fed has no zoning mandate. Are you now saying the fed should get involved and create a mandate or remain hands off? A lot states do not have zoning regulations either and leave it up to localities.

And literally every other policy you listed was pushed and funded by the corporations you seem to want to deregulate. This is literally going no where lol.

Edited July 22, 2021 by Finite

[Orwar]

13 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Do you not think that supply and demand applies to labour as much as with any commodity?   Depending on the nature of the work and the nature of the workforce, it's either a buyers' or sellers' market.

   That's what the plebeians 'realised' after the black plague with the whole people shortage thing, and arguably when things went downhill. 

   Feudalism got things done for a while. If you can look past the whole inequality thing .. But then, the peasantry of the middle-ages on average were less hard-worked than ye average 9-to-5-er*. When they weren't being levied to be shipped off to fight in war, or busy having their homes sacked and and being abducted to become a serf elsewhere. Which arguably didn't matter a whole lot if you were a serf in the first place.

   Then again, moving to another country to do a similar 9-to-5 job as what you did at home isn't too uncommon, and plenty of nations still have compulsory military service and, in times of war, service draft mobilisation. In the middle-ages, the number of draftees on average were 1 in 15 eligible men, the Vietnam draft was roughly 1 in 12. 

   But hey, they got to 'stick it to the rich man' and we lived happily ever after, right?

   To me it seems that the one thing that doesn't change, is the desire for change.

[Drakeo]

5 hours ago, Ayeleeon said:

The job of government is to protect the life

In the USA  it is a Republic. The people elect and pay the servants.

It is We the people are the Government for the people . You can have a million wonderful social programs.

But your still a Republic. For the people by the people.  This is proof it is  time to fire the people we hire.

As for a phallus shaped rocket so what. You ever look at lipstick.

 

[Sukubia Scarmon]

46 minutes ago, Orwar said:

Sit back, relax, and enjoy the show as civilisation continues its struggle to figure out how to function. 

I'm not pro-isolationist to the point that I think that the global infrastructure should be torn down, it's an excellent means to share innovations in medicine and science, and exchange cultural and philosophical ideas - but if humanity at large could survive up until 170 years ago without ever consuming anything that didn't come from within a few miles of their homes, I fail to see the reasoning behind shipping avocados and bananas back and forth across the planet. Not that long ago, a pineapple was such an exclusive item in Europe that it was practically worth its weight in saffron (well, in the 18th century a pineapple cost the equivalent of $8,000, I'm too lazy to go find the actual weight of an 18thC pineapple and the saffron prices of the period converted to modern currency and do the whole math thing), today even a social beneficiary can stuff themselves seven days a week on pineapple if they so choose.

I wouldn't go as far as to suggest the Pol Pot route of sending the people into the woods to clear way for local agriculture, but add a harsh tax to shipping both to compensate for the climate impact by discouraging people from eating the frozen pizzas whose ingredients' shipping on average would amount to a round-the-globe trip (and put the accumulated tax revenue therefrom to doing something positive, like building nuclear power plants - the greenest energy of them all), and to promote local production that increases local employment - globally. 

The caveat is that to enforce such a thing you'd either need to convince everyone that it's the right thing to do, and for everyone to choose to do the right thing - or that you'd have to be an omnipresent, globally authoritarian overlord with the means to enforce it.

For as long as people in general want 'someone else' or 'the rich' to fix the world, we're going nowhere.

I do agree with that, and yeah, I see your point about the enforcing.

I believe change will always start with oneself - since that is all I have control over. I do actually try to buy locally grown food in season for that reason, amongst others - but I also sometimes just don't have that choice, since my budget is severely limited. Adding to that is that my (medically nessesary) diet is also somewhat restricted, which sometimes does add to the lack of choice in where to buy what. 

[Ayeleeon]

1 hour ago, Finite said:

Zoning is state and local level. Are we talking about state or federal here?

I am talking about government in general. If I was thinking of the Federal government, I would have said Federal government.

[Ayeleeon]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CRo4Sh6nwv6/?utm_medium=copy_link