Larry Ellison Buys His Own Hawaiian Island 398
First time accepted submitter nrozema writes "Oracle co-founder and billionaire Larry Ellison is buying the Hawaiian island of Lana'i, the sixth-largest island in the U.S. archipelago. Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie confirmed in a written statement that the current landowner filed a transfer application with the state's Public Utilities commission Wednesday to sell its 98 percent share of the 141-square-mile island to Ellison."
Re:Uh-oh. (Score:5, Interesting)
people in africa have been starving since i was a kid. too bad when you send them food the government takes it
Right, and beyond that, this implies that the kids our food and money saved in the 80's turned around and had another generation of even more kids... that still couldn't be fed.
Not sure what the end game of that process is.
Re:Never thought.... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, about 2% of the island is owned by (if I recall correctly) descendents of Hawaiian natives.
The rest was owned by Dole for a long time, I was unaware it was no longer a pineapple plantation.
Interesting story: While the island was a pineapple plantation, it was nearly impossible to find fresh pineapple on the island in any restaurant or store. This was apparently because the natives were all sick of eating pineapple, and when they did want pineapple they would just sneak onto the plantation and steal one...
(My family went to Lanai when I was in middle school or high school, back when Dole owned most of it.)
Re:Uh-oh. (Score:4, Interesting)
We send rice directly to Haiti. All that did was destroy their rice farms. Meaning more poor people to go on food aid. We destroyed one of the larger parts of their economy with this aid.
Was that before or after all the natural disasters that hit Haiti? If it was post disasters, then it would be hard to claim that it was our aid and not the disasters that destroyed their agricultural economy. I'm seriously asking, not trying to be a smart*ss.
Re:Uh-oh. (Score:5, Interesting)
I see the Libertarian and Republican view of money as being analagous to Newtonian physics and relativity.
From the right PoV, money is a measure of hard work, perhaps talent; but no more. In every day life that makes sense. Money looks like a fair measure. Now, how much talent and hard work can you have? How much money can you have? By definition, nobody can have more than 100% of the money. That's like the speed of light. Just as in physics, non-Newtonian things start happening as you approach the speed of light.
The first sign that you have "relativistic money" is that you have un-earned income. For most of us this is a very small thing (interest, maybe some dividends). Faster, faster... you are going fast enough to live on your un-earned income. Faster still... you seek to protect your sources of income by currying favor with local politicians. Faster, FASTER. You seek national laws that work in your favor. FASTER, FASTER, RUN--for high office, or else enter the space-time continuum of those who hold high office. Attend $30k/plate dinners as a matter of routine. Effectively make policy, which feeds back into the hyperdrive of your ever accelerating fortunes.
Close to the monetary speed of light, the Newtonian world of talent and hard work are of minimal impact, whereas for most of us the relativistic impact of unearned income and influence are negligible, or just a dream.