Jeff Bezos On Critics of Billionaires Going To Space: 'They're Mostly Right' (cnbc.com) 238
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: Jeff Bezos has heard the complaints about billionaires like himself funneling their money into private rocket companies instead of donating to causes on Earth, and he doesn't disagree. In an interview with CNN ahead of his planned Tuesday morning space voyage in a rocket built by his company Blue Origin, Bezos was asked for his thoughts on critics who call the extraterrestrial flights "joyrides for the wealthy, and [who say] you should be spending your time and your money and energy trying to solve problems here on Earth." "Well, I say they are largely right," said Bezos, who Bloomberg estimates is worth $206 billion. "We have to do both. We have lots of problems here on Earth and we have to work on those."
Bezos and fellow billionaires [...] have been characterized by critics as deaf to issues on the ground and too obsessed with making space more accessible when they could put their resources elsewhere. The 57-year-old Bezos, who earlier this month stepped down as CEO of Amazon, said it's important to "look to the future ... as a species and as a civilization." In his view, the work being done today will lay the foundation for future generations to work in space, which "will solve problems here on Earth." In an opinion piece for MSNBC, Talia Lavin views billionaires going to space through a more incendiary lens, writing: "What they seek to leave behind is a planet burning and flooding and full of the kind of small and ordinary suffering such fortunes could alleviate in an instant."
The space program of the 1960s, which resulted in the first crewed mission to land on the Moon, "may have been mired in the bitter and petty rivalries of the Cold War, and limned by prejudice about who could excel," writes Lavin, "but it was a project funded and created by our government, an achievement held in common by the masses. No such common pride can be held in the launch of the titans of capital."
"In this billionaire battle, there is no pretense at a sense of collective pride or communal achievement. Even the drumbeat of nationalism would be better than this obscene egotism, whose fumes are more putrid than rocket-jet emissions. It feels like a parody of hubris, and a colossal celebration of the social failure to moderate preposterous accumulations of wealth."
Thoughts?
Bezos and fellow billionaires [...] have been characterized by critics as deaf to issues on the ground and too obsessed with making space more accessible when they could put their resources elsewhere. The 57-year-old Bezos, who earlier this month stepped down as CEO of Amazon, said it's important to "look to the future ... as a species and as a civilization." In his view, the work being done today will lay the foundation for future generations to work in space, which "will solve problems here on Earth." In an opinion piece for MSNBC, Talia Lavin views billionaires going to space through a more incendiary lens, writing: "What they seek to leave behind is a planet burning and flooding and full of the kind of small and ordinary suffering such fortunes could alleviate in an instant."
The space program of the 1960s, which resulted in the first crewed mission to land on the Moon, "may have been mired in the bitter and petty rivalries of the Cold War, and limned by prejudice about who could excel," writes Lavin, "but it was a project funded and created by our government, an achievement held in common by the masses. No such common pride can be held in the launch of the titans of capital."
"In this billionaire battle, there is no pretense at a sense of collective pride or communal achievement. Even the drumbeat of nationalism would be better than this obscene egotism, whose fumes are more putrid than rocket-jet emissions. It feels like a parody of hubris, and a colossal celebration of the social failure to moderate preposterous accumulations of wealth."
Thoughts?
Or, in other words (Score:2, Funny)
"Should we do something sensible with our money instead of blowing it on joyrides? Probably, but it's my money, so screw you."
Re:Or, in other words (Score:5, Informative)
You misread his comments. He said that the problems on the ground do need to be solved, but opening up space is a big way to solving many of those ground problems, so we need to do both.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Mr. Musk (Score:3, Insightful)
If there is a problem with the "other billionaires" besides Elon Musk, it is that they are not accomplishing anything. And I laughed at the suggestion that it was ok when the government did it because that was a common project. Actually, the government is at this moment pouring billions of dollars down the rat hole of the SLS project which exists to serve as a conduit for faxpayers' money to be routed to Congressional campaign donors. A tidy little dance of money circling the drain. Now, to Elon who i
Re:Mr. Musk (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead he is using his da Vinci level talents to create an offworld colony where humans and the millions of species still left on our dear Earth can survive an asteroid strike, global heating, pandemic, nuclear war and all the other natural and man-made disasters that could end our little experiment in life. Thanks Elon.
I'm a fan of Elon Musk's projects, especially SpaceX and Starship, but this overstates the case. While I think in the long run there is great value in becoming a multi-planetary species, it's a long-term project, and very unlikely to save us from any of the problems you list, except perhaps the asteroid strike, and in that case it won't save us because the other planet will survive when one is wiped out, it will save us because we'll have the space technology needed to spot and divert the asteroid.
We have to solve our problems here on Earth, not avoid them by going elsewhere. That, of course, is no reason not to simultaneously develop space travel. We can do more than one thing at a time. In fact we must do many things at once, because there are a lot of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Better a space race that delivers the stars than the current war machine race that delivers extinction. ANYTHING that achieves that is good.
The current most important thing by far in the space race, getting to orbit and back quickly, cheaply, with lots and lots of mass.
Crack that and we have large space stations, much larger than the current puny nothing stuff. Who cares how billionaires stroke their egos and their often tiny genitals (surprisingly enough the driver for all that over achievement). As long
Design Science can help both Earth and Space (Score:2)
Something related I posted here in 2005: "We need DOGS not CATS!" https://science.slashdot.org/c... [slashdot.org]
One solution is to pursue the 1980s NASA vision http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/... [islandone.org] of first putting automated factories on the moon (or at asteroids) and using robotics (and teleoperation) make space settlements complete with food, water, clothes, etc. for when these people show up. It would in theory only take one Apollo-type launch to the Moon or an asteroid
with the seed of an aut
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Mr. Musk (Score:4)
Instead he is using his da Vinci level talents
I never knew Da Vinci was a smart businessman, who hired the right people to make his visions reality
Re: (Score:3)
Elon Musk is opening up space. Bezos is joyriding in an impractical high altitude airplane and calling himself an astronaut.
Re: (Score:3)
I think both of them are opening up space. They are taking very different routes to getting there, but Bezos (with New Glenn) has the same long-range plans that Musk has.
Re: (Score:2)
If/when New Glenn flies, that will be opening up space. The current hoopla is a worthless dick measuring contest on a sub-orbital vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Space tourism of New Shepherd is how New Glenn is funded. As rich as Bezos is, he still can't self finance New Glenn. So it is a dick measuring contest, but hardly worthless.
Re: Or, in other words (Score:2)
I think he developed reusable rockets, lowered the cost of each launch by reusing major components, and is actually doing productive work delivering materials to the ISS.
The billionaire joy rides are cute distractions, who cares? The US government is shoveling $6TN at 'problems down here' if the current administration has its way - that should go a long way towards addressing those problems people complain about... except, oh wait, it's going to pay for free childcare, free pre-K, free college tuition, and
Re: (Score:2)
How is 'opening up space' going to solve problems here on Earth? Space can do nothing to reduce the wealth gap, improve education, feed the world, ensure clean drinking water, and so on.
It was a BS line from Bezos.
Tech is not always the answer.
Re: (Score:3)
Opening space can massively reduce the wealth gap by making hard to obtain materials significantly more abundant. It can provide solutions to waste disposal. It opens up a wider perspective on climate (measurable shift in climate advocacy by every person who has become an astronaut and actually seen the view of Earth from space). It seems likely to provide solutions to clean energy (by allowing us to produce/collect it outside the atmosphere and beam it down), although this is unproven tech. It ultimately w
Re: (Score:3)
Sensible? Other than putting the money into the economy by creating jobs and developing new tech?
Re: (Score:2)
How would him putting money into the economy create jobs? Even he can't consume that much.
Re: (Score:2)
An advanced form of the broken windows fallacy. Not all putting money into the economy is equal.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not equivalent to the broken window fallacy at all. The broken window fallacy essentially states that the act of breaking a window is economically good, because it results in economic activity that might not have existed. So if you deliberately sabotaged and destroyed Bezo's rocket, and argued that this was economically beneficial, then that would constitute the fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
The broken window fallacy is an analogy to any valueless expenditure. For example, spending a bunch of money on a rocket plane that accomplishes nothing but letting some ultra wealthy people call themselves astronauts.
Re:Or, in other words (Score:5, Informative)
"Should we do something sensible with our money instead of blowing it on joyrides? Probably, but it's my money, so screw you."
Bezos's money?
Senate Preparing $10 Billion Bailout Fund for Jeff Bezos Space Firm [theintercept.com]
Senate competitiveness bill includes $10B authorization for Bezos space company [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's a proposed item in the budget plan. Lots of things get p
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that it was even considered is the problem.
Tech invest (Score:2)
Re:Or, in other words (Score:4, Insightful)
In terms of percentage of wealth, I dare say that I donated probably more.
It's easy to donate a million if that's an amount that doesn't register to you. If you want to impress me, donate an amount that actually matters to you.
Re: (Score:2)
"He's done more than you."
Not so easy to calculate. Percentage of wealth donated. What was done with his donations. What detrimental stuff where done accumulating his monetary wealth. What's being compared in all. How does it compare.
How much was done that helped reduce how much need be done.
Re: (Score:3)
Way to avoid all my points.
Suppose his 200 billion accumulated resulted in just 20 billion dollars worth of damage to individuals, society, and the environment, then what he's 'done' could easily be in the negatives with only a 10 billion dollar donation.
That's hardly nonsense.
And someone making $40,000 a year and donating just $2500 is donating more than he is percentage wise. And so on.
My point being that it's not that so easy to quantify what he's done.
Now some may be jealous, thinking they know how to c
Yeah they're right, B-U-T (Score:2)
Jeff Bezos indicating that critics are correct about their stance but stopping short of any indication that he, himself, will do anything about it, is pretty par for the course here.
So he's going to do what he wants to do, is smart enough to know that he ought not do those things if he enjoys the current viability of this society much less the planet, but is conceited enough to do nothing about any of it. And yet all of the above is still somehow not incredibly shocking.
What was it that The Hitchhiker
Re: (Score:2)
he's donated billions and you complain
Correct. Because his charities he gives to does not solve social problems faced by all. Bezos wants better infrastructure, why not pay some taxes to get that done? Bezos wants more income equality, why not pay your employees more? My complaint is that Bezos has stated things he wants, yet has all the power to change those things and does not change them. Bezos should pick better things to want OR stop wanting those things.
Or let's look at just one of his charitable contribution funds. You know, just s
Re: Yeah they're right, B-U-T (Score:3)
"Because his charities he gives to does not solve social problems faced by all."
Ok I'm not a big fan of Bezos, but that statement isn't true. He does donate to a lot of charities to solve social problems faced by all. Of course you can debate whether they're the best charities to give to for solving certain social issues, but he is nonetheless giving to them.
https://fortune.com/2021/01/04... [fortune.com]
https://www.thedenverchannel.c... [thedenverchannel.com]
https://www.vox.com/recode/201... [vox.com]
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: Yeah they're right, B-U-T (Score:3)
Sorry to double comment, but Amazon is launching electric delivery vans:
https://www.aboutamazon.com/ne... [aboutamazon.com]
And they've placed an order for 100k delivery vans:
https://www.caranddriver.com/n... [caranddriver.com]
And his foundation has donated to charities aimed at advancing electrification of commercial and industrial vehicles:
https://www.movinonconnect.com... [movinonconnect.com]
The Amazon investments aren't a charitable donation per se, but I think it addresses your concern - Bezos is basically saying "climate change needs to be solved" so he's don
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so you just disagree with what charities he donates to. That's matter of opinion only, no one has to do what you think.
No you literally read nothing of my reply. So I'll summarized it since more than hundred words seems to be a tall task for you.
If guy complains there isn't enough "ABC", guy is a owner of a factory that produces "ABC", and then guy goes pay someone who will help people produce about 1% of the "ABC" that guy produces. Then my issue is that guy should do one of two things.
(1) Not complain about "not enough ABC"
(2) Tell his factory to put some ABC out there that everyone can enjoy
You can read my previous com
Liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen (Score:5, Insightful)
" whose fumes are more putrid than rocket-jet emissions"
The Blue Origin plumes are water made from the hydrogen and oxygen reactions. If they're going to use such metaphors, the writers need to do their science homework. These modern rockets are clean-burning, with no CO2 or toxic exhaust. Just very hot steam. There are some valid complaints to these private missions, but putrid output is not one of them.
Re:Liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen (Score:4, Insightful)
These modern rockets are clean-burning, with no CO2 or toxic exhaust
Well this one yes. But it's important to understand that Blue Origin has a bifurcated engine line. New Shepard is using BE-3 which is LH2/LOX. Their BE-4 is using LOX/LNG to product COn products. BE-7 is the next iteration in the New Shepard line up so it'll be an advancement on the LH2/LOX engine there. No idea if they plan on unifying production lines into a single motor.
Now Virgin Galactic is using NO2/HTPB engine in RM2 for SS2 design. With CHn byproducts in exhaust.
LH2/LOX is still complicated fuels to use and a lot of these rocket companies to decrease complexity aren't picking those kinds of fuels. Now the ones who've been at it for a while or had vast amounts of capital to sink into it, yeah the LH2/LOX is a good option. But a lot of the smaller ones are still using RP-1 et al. kinds of fuels.
But all that said, the emissions from these rockets and the infrequent launches of them, these aren't anywhere near the domain of cause of concern for pollution from exhaust. Additionally, I believe this:
Even the drumbeat of nationalism would be better than this obscene egotism, whose fumes are more putrid than rocket-jet emissions
Is just the person trying to invoke imagery and not actually make a statement on the composition of rocket exhaust.
Re: (Score:2)
> Well this one yes.
Point taken. I was focused on the ones flying right now. I don't know if the others will ever fly, and whether they'll change fuels before they get there... Blue in particular has gotten a lot of good press for its clean engine on New Shepherd that they may be unwilling to lose.
> Is just the person trying to invoke imagery and not actually make a statement on the composition of rocket exhaust.
It's an ad hominem attack masquerading as an argument. It's a clever way to tar the oppone
Talia Levin is exactly what's wrong with America (Score:3)
The space program of the 1960s, which resulted in the first crewed mission to land on the Moon, "may have been mired in the bitter and petty rivalries of the Cold War, and limned by prejudice about who could excel," writes Lavin, "but it was a project funded and created by our government, an achievement held in common by the masses. No such common pride can be held in the launch of the titans of capital."
Of course she views the contest between freedom and totalitarian communism as a mere "petty rivalry."
More to the point, thank God our government is no longer in charge of all launch vehicle development. So far NASA has spent $18.3 billion of taxpayer money to develop its new-ish expendable rocket (SLS), and has nothing to show for it.
By contrast, Elon spent $300 million of his own money to develop the wildly successful Falcon 9. If that doesn't convince people that private enterprise does things more effici
Re:Liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen (Score:5, Insightful)
NOx is also formed.
Shouldn't be. There's no nitrogen in the combustion chamber
No rocket is "clean burning" in the atmosphere,
The combustion in a rocket engine doesn't occur in the atmosphere; it occurs in the combustion chamber.
Re:Liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen (Score:5, Insightful)
You're confused and wrong, the nitrogen is all around that bring flame coming out the bottom end.
If the engine is correctly designed, the combustion energy is converted into exhaust kinetic energy before the exhaust products reach the atmosphere. A well designed rocket engine running on hydrogen and oxygen won't produce nitrogen oxides.
Your freshman 101 knowledge isn't good enough, time for rocket facts 201.
Actually, I am [google.com] a rocket scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
the combustion energy is converted into exhaust kinetic energy before the exhaust products reach the atmosphere. A well designed rocket engine running on hydrogen and oxygen won't produce nitrogen oxides.
Isn't temperature just the average kinetic of the gas molecules? You only need 1300C to make nitrogen oxides, which is water molecules moving at around 1500m/s by my envelope back. A rocket exhaust speed is 2-3 times that, so must be very hot in a meaningful sense when it meets the atmosphere, no?
While the rocket exhaust contains negligible free oxygen, I'd have thought it will be hot enough on contact with air to create some nitrogen oxides, as any combustion does. Just not much, especially
Re:Liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen (Score:4, Informative)
the combustion energy is converted into exhaust kinetic energy before the exhaust products reach the atmosphere. A well designed rocket engine running on hydrogen and oxygen won't produce nitrogen oxides.
Isn't temperature just the average kinetic of the gas molecules?
Close. Temperature is the random portion of the average kinetic energy of the gas molecules. A packet of gas moving in one direction is not hotter if it's moving quickly.
What a rocket nozzle does is convert the random motion of hot gas into directed motion.
You only need 1300C to make nitrogen oxides,
Yes... and also no. Nitrogen reactions typically are done with pressure as well as temperature. Your car engine, for example (assuming you don't have a Tesla), makes nitrogen oxides not because the combustion process is hot, but because it is hot and compressed. The Haber process, the canonical example of nitrogen fixation, runs at ~100 bar or higher. So, if there were nitrogen in the combustion chamber of the engine... yes, you'd get NOx. At atmospheric pressure, not so much. Yes, lightning produces nitrogen oxides at atmospheric pressure, but lightning is 30,000C, a lot hotter than rocket combustion temperatures.
which is water molecules moving at around 1500m/s by my envelope back. A rocket exhaust speed is 2-3 times that, so must be very hot in a meaningful sense when it meets the atmosphere, no?
Good choice of phrase, 'hot in a meaningful sense'. Right: it's not hot in a thermodynamic sense, but the rocket exhaust has kinetic energy, which will indeed turn to temperature when it slows down. Which it does by mixing with air. But the mixing with air dilutes it and hence spreads the kinetic energy over a large amount of gas, meaning that once the kinetic energy has turned into thermal energy, it's not as hot as it had been in the combustion chamber.
While the rocket exhaust contains negligible free oxygen, I'd have thought it will be hot enough on contact with air to create some nitrogen oxides, as any combustion does. Just not much, especially as it is designed to minimise mixing of fast exhaust with atmosphere.
OK, I'd call that reasonable; I suppose there could be non-zero NOx in the interface region between the supersonic flow and the external atmosphere. But the "not much" really should be interpreted as "almost zero". The reaction H2O+N2 --> H2+N2O really doesn't go very fast; it's thermodynamically unfavorable and has a high reaction barrier.
Actually, I am a rocket scientist.
Well, it's hardly brain surgery.
Fortunately for you! I'd be a terrible brain surgeon.
Re:Liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen (Score:5, Funny)
You're confused and wrong, the nitrogen is all around that bring flame coming out the bottom end.
Actually, I am a rocket scientist.
Oh my god! I have been waiting 20+ years to hear this kind of response and it absolutely is as glorious as I thought it would be. I can die happy now. :)
Perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
You're an ignorant rocket scientist then, no real world rocket does that, all cause atmospheric nitrogen to burn without exception.
Citation needed otherwise you just got pwnd by a rocket scientist. No shame in that, he is smart after all.
Alleviating problems (Score:2)
Well, better government might count as another way, but I don't think liberal democracy can really persist without material abundance.
Re:Alleviating problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup! People think that $206B is a lot and say it should be used to help the poor, but consider that $206B evenly spread across *just* the population of the USA is only $628 per person. Would an extra paycheck or two fix any long-term problems? Probably not. But, all that money in the hands of one person apparently can (1) employ lots of people, (2) push the boundaries of science and technology, and (3) inspire people to create a better future.
As for the fact that he *has* lots of money and can spend it how he pleases is, well, a side effect of capitalism. You don't agree? Start your own megacompany and show us how it's done ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Yup! People think that $206B is a lot and say it should be used to help the poor, but consider that $206B evenly spread across *just* the population of the USA is only $628 per person. Would an extra paycheck or two fix any long-term problems? Probably not. But, all that money in the hands of one person apparently can (1) employ lots of people, (2) push the boundaries of science and technology, and (3) inspire people to create a better future.
As for the fact that he *has* lots of money and can spend it how he pleases is, well, a side effect of capitalism. You don't agree?
he doesn't have to throw money around. it's just that he could use his exceptional skills, resources and influence for good instead of just more profit. if "money makes the world go around", and in our current civilization the globally accepted narrative is that it is, then the guy with the most money surely has something to say, and really no excuse around that.
just imagine what level of lobbying his capital could exert. worldwide. you know how politicians are motivated, right? nobody said it can't be done
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or put another way, if Bezos sold absolutely everything he owned he'd be able to fund the US military for 3 and a half months before he was destitute.
nobody is asking to spread their money (Score:3)
Re: nobody is asking to spread their money (Score:3)
Early Adopter (Score:2, Insightful)
This is as stupid as those rich guys with their briefcase cellphones in the 1980s. What a stupid, conspicuous show of wealth. Nobody will be able to afford those things. I mean, even if they make them cheaper, it's just a portable phone. Big whoop.
Re: (Score:2)
And without the early adopters (which in some/many cases are governments, but now are increasingly just the ultra-rich), who do you think will pay for technology to be advanced?
Re: (Score:2)
This is as stupid as those rich guys with their briefcase cellphones in the 1980s.
You're right.
What idiot would want to walk around all day with a phone? /s
There is no fixed pie (Score:3)
>"and full of the kind of small and ordinary suffering such fortunes could alleviate in an instant."
Nope. Just had to put that in there, somewhere, right? They could donate all their money to whatever charities and it would be used up pretty quickly (and many, if not most, already donate tons of their money) and then it will be mostly gone, and probably with far less impact on the relief of "suffering" that many would guess. Take it away via government and the help really would be almost "instant"ly gone and guarantee the well will be dry forever. I am all for encouraging charity (especially over "theft"-level hyper taxing), but the ultra-rich already pay TONS of tax and are typically responsible for tons of wealth, employment, capital, and production for others. In a market economy, income is not a fixed pie where someone earning a lot "takes money away" from other people.
As for taxing it away from them- almost 35% of Americans pay NO income tax at all. Many even get NEGATIVE income tax (money back). The bottom 50% of earners amount to only 3% of income tax taken in. Meanwhile, the top 10% of income earners pay 71% of all income tax. The top 1%, alone, pay 40% of all income tax.
Re: (Score:3)
Convert your numbers from total tax contribution to contribution as a percentage of income and you will see what all the fuss is about.
I get that you see government as wasteful. As an American, you should, because your tax dollars are largely spent bailing out and propping up the ultra-wealthy and entrenched interests. In countries with much more left-leaning governments, the citizenry benefits a great deal from government programs, and we don't feel nearly the sort of angst towards our governments. Don't
Re: (Score:2)
>"I get that you see government as wasteful. As an American, you should, because your tax dollars are largely spent bailing out and propping up the ultra-wealthy and entrenched interests."
Indeed. It is unfortunate that there is so much cronyism going on in this country. I wish there was much more focus on elimination of that. Then, existing tax dollars would go SO much further and do so much more.
>"and we don't feel nearly the sort of angst towards our governments. "
Well, part of that is still heal
Calculating is hard :( (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't instantly solve world hunger or war or poverty or homelessness or disease or death or healthcare bills.
As a quick anecdote, since the math is too hard to do, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have both committed large fractions of their wealth to charitable causes. They are moving the needle on some of those causes, but they did not instantly solve any of their chosen issues with wealth.
And in an effort to inject some humility into the rising generation, just because it seems obvious to you that taking Jeff Bezos' money and giving it to your preferred cause would be a net benefit to society doesn't make it true. It is quite possible that Jeff's joyride will make a bigger difference in creating a better tomorrow than that same money would if spent in your preferred manner. Say it with me. "I can't predict the future."
Re:Calculating is hard :( (Score:4, Informative)
^^ This.
The other thing that most of this negative commentary doesn't take into account is that Bezos' insane wealth isn't liquid. He can't just decide tomorrow that he wants however many billion dollars in cash to distribute to the needy people of the world. It doesn't work like that.
It would be nice if people suggested actionable solutions instead of just yelling angry things about rich people. It gets old.
Re:Calculating is hard :( (Score:5, Insightful)
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime"
What Bezos and Musk want to do is teach man to fish. Spending money on social causes has only a tiny and temporary impact. The US government has spent trillions of dollars over the past two years and it has barely moved the needle for the average American. Investment in science and technology pays dividends far into the future.
That said, I do think Bezos personally taking the inaugural ride on his penis-shaped rocket into sort-of-but-not-quite-space was a pure ego trip with minimal scientific value.
Re: (Score:3)
Can we do a class or something for young idealists who want to change the world? The billionaires of the world don't have enough money to solve any of the worlds problems in an instant, much less all of them. As a quick anecdote, since the math is too hard to do, ...
How much would it cost to eliminate poverty? I reckon we can do the calculations...
* Globally, $175 billion per year over 20 years https://borgenproject.org/how-... [borgenproject.org]
* US, $350 billion per year https://www.spsp.org/news-cent... [spsp.org]
* Canada, $22 billion total to cut poverty in half https://www.canada.ca/en/emplo... [canada.ca]
How much would it cost to end homelessness?
* US, $20 billion https://www.globalgiving.org/l... [globalgiving.org]
* US, $40 billion to drastically reduce it https://www.verifythis.com/art... [verifythis.com]
* US, $40 billion per year https: [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"What they seek to leave behind is a planet burning and flooding and full of the kind of small and ordinary suffering such fortunes could alleviate in an instant."
You can't solve world poverty in an instant, no matter how much money you have. Your own
Re: (Score:3)
I was reacting to the author cited in the summary
True.
I was reacting to your comment "Can we do a class or something for young idealists who want to change the world?" by providing the outline of that class and confirming to the young idealists that indeed they're right, and that the numbers show that our society can indeed be changed quickly (i.e. within a decade) and dramatically by redistributing the wealth of billionaires.
I was also reacting to your comment "since the math is too hard to do" with an indication that no, the math isn't too hard to do.
(O
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ending homelessness caused by housing shortage by spending money is an oxymoron. What we *can* fix is homelessness due to mental or physical illness, though.
Housing is like "musical chairs". There are not enough houses to go around, and without more permits, no amount of money will fix it.
For example California housing shortage is estimated to be between 3-4 million units. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. That means, no matter who is put in the existing houses, many millions of families will be left out (
Re: (Score:2)
The US already spends far more than $350 billion per year on programs to eliminate poverty and homelessness.
And yet...
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you say the billionaires can't move the needle on their own but then cite a single billionaire that has moved the needle in significant ways on a number of issues from vaccination in Africa to oil spill cleanup technology, to energy generation, smart grids both electric and transportation, to food production even. All the while making even MORE money.
No one is suggesting Bezos divest himself of all of his assets but there is certainly a lot more he could be doing as he himself admits. He doesn'
Re: (Score:2)
"What they seek to leave behind is a planet burning and flooding and full of the kind of small and ordinary suffering such fortunes could alleviate in an instant."
I understand that you are much smarter and more empathetic than I am, but be
World hunger is easy to solve (Score:2)
He's wrong. Space trips are not a waste. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are two mistakes the space haters are making.
1) They think that billionaires paying for space joy rides is a waste. NO. Compare with the other things they spend the money on. Hookers, drugs, yachts (aka holes in the water you fill with money), parties, mansions, gold, clothing, jewelry, etc. These are the things they waste money. Specifically they are giving it to people that do not contribute to society in a beneficial way. Yachts are probably the worst. Not only do you waste cash building a ridiculous expensive thing that burns fossil fuels, but you pay people to sit around on the yacht doing nothing. Rocket scientist contribute to our knowledge. Engineers learn how to build things. Satellites in space are so valuable that we have run out of space to put them. Now we need to know how to safely remove them. And the process has taken so long that some people that might have gone into worthless fields like say loan recovery, went to college to become an engineer specifically to work for these millionaires.
2) The money is NOT wasted. The entire billionaire 'space race' was a con job that NASA pulled on the billionaires. We decided to 'privatize' the space race. They cut funding to NASA building space ships and convinced the billionaires to pay for it. They have done so.
Every single dollar the billionaires 'wasted' on their 'joy ride' was money that NASA had originally planned to spend out of YOUR tax dollars!. We have tricked Bezos and friends into paying taxes for us. HOORAY.
Some people are idiots. They think money spent on space is wasted. NO. Money spent on space is spent here on Earth for GOOD jobs. Research, testing, safety, etc. Far better than money being sent to some Colombia drug lord or some Russian Human Trafficker.
Re: (Score:2)
The place they're right though is that we shouldn't be giving him money, except for services. Let him figure out the funding.
Re: (Score:3)
Mine is bigger thans yours! (Score:2)
Let 'em play (Score:2)
I'm totally OK with super rich people doing kinda crazy pet projects that nobody else would have money to do. People like to complain when rich people go to space. People like to complain when rich people try to improve global health. People like to complain when rich people just exist. They say it isn't fair. They say they have better ideas of what they'd do with the money. Meh.
Mainly jealousy (Score:3)
Fact of the matter is....if half the people ended up with a 10th of the wealth these billionaires had, they wouldn't do what they're asking the billionaires to do.
All well and good to tell someone what they should be doing when you're not in the same position as them.
Do I think it's a good thing for an individual should have that much wealth, while others suffer and / or get poorer? Not at all, but it's not my place to decide "should haves" and "shouldn't haves".
Re: (Score:2)
Eh (Score:2)
I think bashing these guys is low hanging fruit for journalists and social media virtue signalers. BUT, the work Bezos and Branson decided to focus on seems more like a theme-park ride rather than anything innovative or useful that drives humanity's space ambitions forward.
The critique makes a good point (Score:2)
Some of the surplus value produced by the people of the US went to US space program, to plant US flag in space, an achievement of the US.
Here some of the surplus value produced by US value went to Bezos, to fly him into space in very dick shaped rocket, an achievement of Bezos.
There is a strong sense he is breaking the rules and social contract of capitalism. He is supposed to be reinvesting surplus wealth into things to benefit people, there is a strong sense this does not. Who knows though, maybe he will
Re: (Score:2)
Bezos' rockets won't be used for anything because SpaceX won that business. I got no problem with him turning a business loss into a personal win, why wouldn't you?
Here some of the surplus value produced by US value went to Bezos, to fly him into space in very dick shaped rocket, an achievement of Bezos.
A cock rocket, a cocket? A flying dildo. I think it's fucking hilarious! However who here would turn down the opportunity to go to space in a flying penis if you had a chance?
Bezos took his brother and a woman, Wally Funk, who trained to go in the Mercury program so good on him, he righted a wrong. Whilst his critics are butt hurt about hi
Taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxes are how the general public tells people (including billionaires) how to spend their money.
Indirectly spend it, of course: Give it to the government, and THEY spend it. But who is the government? Representatives you voted for (on average; some exceptions may apply). If you don't like how other people are spending their own money, well, there's your way of correcting that. And yes, that's a harder problem than "solving the problems here on earth".
The US government's total revenue for 2021 is estimated at $3.8 trillion (with a T) dollars. Significantly more than Bezos' entire net worth. And you still can't solve those problems? Say you take Bezos to the cleaners. If the US can't work out these problems on $3.8 trillion per year, do you think there'd be significantly more progress with a one-time infusion of less than 10% of that?
Re: (Score:2)
Hater's gonna Hate (Score:5, Insightful)
Just doing some basic googling and math. If Jeff Bezos donated his entire fortune (200 billion) to every person living in 'poverty' in the world (689 Million). They each would get about 290$ USD. What would 290$ fix for anyone?
I believe HIS money was well spent.
Ref:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos
https://www.worldvision.org/sponsorship-news-stories/global-poverty-facts#how-many
Re: (Score:2)
What would 290$ fix for anyone?
$290 could feed and house a poor person for a full year or longer, depending on location.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, it may very well. But after that year, would said house be "out of poverty"?
Re: Hater's gonna Hate (Score:2, Informative)
Okay, how about we start small?
The estimated cost to end hunger in just the USA is $25 billion-$30 billion.
The estimated cost to end homelessness in the USA is about $30 billion.
Bezos could do those things and still have about $150 billion rattling around in his pocket.
What is remarkable about Bezos' insane wealth that ordinary rich people look normal by comparison. My net worth is closer to that of a millionaire in a Ferrari than that millionaire's is to Bezos.
Anyway, abolish billionaires. There is literal
Re: (Score:2)
>"Bezos could do those things and still have about $150 billion rattling around in his pocket."
This is such nonsense. Even if those numbers are correct, which I doubt, it would "end" it for however long that money lasted. Maybe a few months. Then it is GONE and you are right where you started, perhaps worse. Then, of course, you would go after his remaining money until that is gone, too. Game over, and things really will be worse. Now his capital and incentives gone, there will be nothing much more
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, how about we start small?
The estimated cost to end hunger in just the USA is $25 billion-$30 billion.
The estimated cost to end homelessness in the USA is about $30 billion.
While I think your numbers are way off base lets stipulate they are correct.
60,000,000,000 / 331,002,651 / 12 = $15.08 per month per person.
Bezos could do those things and still have about $150 billion rattling around in his pocket.
So could most everyone else.
Re:Hater's gonna Hate (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong assumption.
If instead of having that fortune in his hands, it would be in the hands of the 1.3 mio employees of Amazon, that'd be over 150,000 US$ for each and every one of them. The majority of these people are low or middle income. They would spend that money, much of it locally (supplies, household items, clothes, real estate, etc.) So those 150,000 U$ would raise the income of a dozen other people and businesses. Then those people go and spend it...
Those billions could be circulating in the economy. You can't understand economy as a static system, you have to think in dynamics. In a static system, you are right it makes little difference who has the money. In a dynamic system, it matters greatly.
Also, US$ 290 would mean the world for the poor. The global poverty line is $1.90 / day. The median US income is around 190 US$ per day. So multiply that by 100 to get an impression of what it actually means. Would getting $29,000 solve lots of problems for the average american? Like being able to pay off your debts or being able to take care of that health issue?
Even ignoring the dynamic effects, your statement is wrong. US$ 290 would mean a LOT to those living in poverty.
Talia Levin? Lmao (Score:2)
No real opinion on the Jeff Bezos story itself, feel free to mod -1, Offtopic, but Talia Levin (the author of the MSNBC editorial, for those who don't read TFS) is a piece of shit.
During the Covid outbreak in New York, she was dutifully signal-boosting [imgur.com] people urging New Yorkers to remain in the city and at home to help control the spread. Very responsible! But of course, she herself is a very special person for whom the rules do not apply, so she booked it to upstate NY [imgur.com] as quick as she could.
Nakedly hypocri
ANTS (Score:2)
Obviously... (Score:2)
Frivolous Spending by the Rich is Good (Score:2)
Perhaps silly, but melodramatic (Score:2)
Contrary to how the numbers 'work' in an economy, resources aren't that freely fungible. Yes, you could redirect from one area to another to some extent, but by and large you throw X numbers of 'dollars' at something that is notoriously limited, then it'll just adjust to require X more dollars to get the same result. It's a real social problem that some people have crazy high numbers beyond reason. However people are too optimistic if they think a more reasonable valuation of people will actually increase
Huh? (Score:2)
I'm sure I'll get modded into oblivion for coming to the defence of a billionaire but no, they're not mostly right.
You need to decide for yourself what is of value and what isn't, but in my personal opinion space travel is of immense value. There is a tremendous amount to gain from making space accessible from tourism to mining to settling remote planets so we have our proverbial eggs in more than a single basket.
The ONLY way that can happen is through investment. When the insanely wealthy drop tons of cash
It's his business. (Score:4, Insightful)
Jeff Bezos is an extraordinary entrepreneur and made himself one of the richest men in the world through his vision and hard work. He made a lot of money and he can do whatever he wants with it. If he wants to fly himself into space, or buy a town in Connecticut and paint all the buildings purple, or give everyone in South America a pogo stick, he is free to do that. Whiny complaints from people who have not been as successful are unpleasant to hear and not useful. If these people are committed to ending famine, they should work on the problem themselves and not complain that Bezos has not done it.
Glass houses situated upon glass parking lots (Score:2)
What speaks most loudly is the notion of expecting someone else to "fix" the world for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has to do it, if they're sucking all the air out of the room then it can only be them. The actual Amazon is burning and JB here is taking joyrides to almost-space.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has to do it,
Nobody has to.
if they're sucking all the air out of the room then it can only be them
I wouldn't put it past Bezos to secretly build a giant vacuum cleaner to suck all the air from the world.
If the insinuation is people who are not bazillonaires don't have the means to organize and "fix" anything even if they wanted to this is clearly not true. There are few bazillonaires in this world. Everyone else does all the work and wields all the real power.
The actual Amazon is burning and JB here is taking joyrides to almost-space.
Millions of people took flights to screw around on the fourth of July holiday while the actual Amazon burns. The Amazon burns whi
So, what are those plans down on Earth then. (Score:2)
You know, Amazon could go to a 30 hour work week, keep pay at 40 hours rates that start at 20 an hour, infusing a lot of resources into a lot of communities by providing upward pressure on wages while *still* having a ton of money.
They failed to improve health care, but they could still lobby for single payer while making a system for direct payments to providers. Insurance adds about 20 to 25% of overhead. All it would take is some big players to build a system that knocks that way down.
Apple, etc. could c
What did they think would happen (Score:3)
I think the journalist is trying to pick an easy target but makes obvious mistakes. For one, Richard Branson's video while weightless talks about dreams and is inspiring. His charisma being used to a good cause. And, I wonder if you think a private space industry is critical for mankind's advancement (and it tends to advance civilian technology too), then what do you expect would happen? The billionaires get on the first safe rides. However I also think Musk has no need to put himself and the entire program at risk by risking his own life whereas his competitors are expecting it to benefit their own.
Re: (Score:2)