Page 41 of 58 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 572

Thread: Billionaires Blast off

  1. Top | #401
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,524
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    61,467
    Rep Power
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Your jabber proves you missed the point - many innovators are not motivated by wealth.
    It's not jabber - it's showing that your claim does not fit the example you provided.
    No, it is jabber.
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Just because Orville Wright died with a net worth of "only" 10 million (in today's dollars) does in no way show he was not motivated by wealth. Because
    a) 10 million net worth is still pretty wealthy
    b) the brothers made some business blunders that limited their wealth creation no matter their motivation
    c) the big commercial success of aviation came many decades after their first flight
    You miss the point. $10 million is not that much when the discussion is revolving about billions of dollars. The Wright brothers made a truly revolutionary innovation without reaping billions of dollars which suggests that there are innovator who are not motivated solely by the reward of billions of dollars.

  2. Top | #402
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    16,106
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    32,935
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Reality doesn't have the concept "fair". It's purely a way of pretending workers should be paid more than market rates.
    Define "market".

  3. Top | #403
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    25,063
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    35,540
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    Inventions with revolutionary potential made by a mysterious aerospace engineer for the U.S. Navy come to light.

    https://bigthink.com/surprising-scie...change-reality

    YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK?

    The U.S. Navy controls patents for some futuristic and outlandish technologies, some of which, dubbed "the UFO patents," came to light recently. Of particular note are inventions by the somewhat mysterious Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais, whose tech claims to be able to "engineer reality." His slate of highly-ambitious, borderline sci-fi designs meant for use by the U.S. government range from gravitational wave generators and compact fusion reactors to next-gen hybrid aerospace-underwater crafts with revolutionary propulsion systems, and beyond.

    Of course, the existence of patents does not mean these technologies have actually been created, but there is evidence that some demonstrations of operability have been successfully carried out. As investigated and reported by The War Zone, a possible reason why some of the patents may have been taken on by the Navy is that the Chinese military may also be developing similar advanced gadgets.

    Among Dr. Pais's patents are designs, approved in 2018, for an aerospace-underwater craft of incredible speed and maneuverability. This cone-shaped vehicle can potentially fly just as well anywhere it may be, whether air, water or space, without leaving any heat signatures. It can achieve this by creating a quantum vacuum around itself with a very dense polarized energy field. This vacuum would allow it to repel any molecule the craft comes in contact with, no matter the medium. Manipulating "quantum field fluctuations in the local vacuum energy state," would help reduce the craft's inertia. The polarized vacuum would dramatically decrease any elemental resistance and lead to "extreme speeds," claims the paper.
    I don't know much (anything) about creating quantum vacuums, but it doesn't sound like stuff that someone could undertake in their garage. Nor does this sound like something for which an enterprising individual might succeed via a go-fund-me campaign, or even by recruiting venture capitalists to invest in. Yet the return might (or might not) dwarf the accomplishment of creating a reusable rocket booster - the only truly novel part of Musk and Bezos' celebrated endeavor (Binnie flew higher in SpaceShipOne - twice - some seventeen years ago).

    I'm not trying to say that anything truly new always requires government investment, but some things require risks that the private sector simply will not shoulder.
    During the Cold War, both sides leaked "classified research" into hugely difficult but potentially game-changing technologies, with the sole intention of wasting their opponent's resources in pursuit of these impossible goals.

    An enemy who wastes billions trying to match your (alleged) breakthroughs in the creation of quantum vacuum multi-substrate supersonic vehicles, is an enemy not spending those billions on research projects that might actually prove fruitful, or on current technology like submarines, aircraft, missiles, and nuclear warheads.

    I see no reason to imagine that this strategy was abandoned when the Cold War ended.

  4. Top | #404
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    25,063
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    35,540
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Fair pay for productive work is not taking from the employer. Taking advantage of an imbalance of power by paying the workers as little as possible, it's the employer who takes potential earnings from employees.

    Which means that you have it backwards.
    Reality doesn't have the concept "fair".
    Humanity does though.
    It's purely a way of pretending workers should be paid more than market rates.
    It's not a pretence.

    Everyone - worker or not - should be provided with enough to survive.

    There's no physical law that says we must allow people to starve if they can't persuade the market to exchange their labour for sufficient resources.

    Indeed, most people in society already live by the labour of others. Children and retirees, housewives and homemakers, the sick and the injured - huge numbers of people do no paid work, or are paid too little to support themselves, and are dependants of others.

    Humans are a social species. We're not able to be self sufficient, and proposing that we should be, because free market economics demands it, is frankly insane. It's entirely a matter of political choice, to what extent we let market forces dominate our economy. They're not the word of god, or an unassailable fact of reality; They're a choice.

    Every OECD nation redistributes some wealth from rich to poor. The question is not, and never was, 'Should this happen?'. It has always been 'How much should this happen?'.

    You cannot even approach that second question if you start with the blatantly absurd false premise that money should only go to those the free market directs it to.

  5. Top | #405
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,890
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,796
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Fair pay for productive work is not taking from the employer. Taking advantage of an imbalance of power by paying the workers as little as possible, it's the employer who takes potential earnings from employees.

    Which means that you have it backwards.
    Reality doesn't have the concept "fair". It's purely a way of pretending workers should be paid more than market rates.
    Who do you think sets 'market rates?' If most of the profits/wealth flows into the hands of a small percentage of the population....who is regulating fair distribution of wealth for work performed in generating that wealth?

    The 'market?' I don't think so.

    Why should workers not get their share? Or are workers supposed to sacrifice for the profit of the extremely rich? Is that your ideal world?

  6. Top | #406
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    32,989
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,741
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Fair pay for productive work is not taking from the employer. Taking advantage of an imbalance of power by paying the workers as little as possible, it's the employer who takes potential earnings from employees.

    Which means that you have it backwards.
    Reality doesn't have the concept "fair". It's purely a way of pretending workers should be paid more than market rates.
    That isn't actually true. The concept of "fair" is what happens when probabilistically positive and negative behavior is rewarded based on an artificial allotment based on the probability rather than the probabilistic outcome, so as to allot rewards based on values and behaviors rather than randomizations.

    Some things must not be perfectly fair. Too much fairness robs a system of it's dynamism. But fairness certainly allows for more useful outcomes at selection; Too much individual variation against a core attribute makes it impossible to reliably prevent false negatives/positives on the axis of discrimination.

    It's really a matter of tuning the balance between fairness and probabilistics so as to encourage enough bad selection to guarantee the presence of abnormal or borderline capabilities (dynamism) but ensure that the majority of success happens because of work.

    Reality comes into it that this is going to create better outcomes for agents that adopt the strategy. We have adopted it, and the conclusion is "the system as it stands does not include enough fairness for optimal function".
    Present an objective means of measuring "fair".

  7. Top | #407
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    32,989
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,741
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Fair pay for productive work is not taking from the employer. Taking advantage of an imbalance of power by paying the workers as little as possible, it's the employer who takes potential earnings from employees.

    Which means that you have it backwards.
    Reality doesn't have the concept "fair". It's purely a way of pretending workers should be paid more than market rates.
    Who do you think sets 'market rates?' If most of the profits/wealth flows into the hands of a small percentage of the population....who is regulating fair distribution of wealth for work performed in generating that wealth?

    The 'market?' I don't think so.

    Why should workers not get their share? Or are workers supposed to sacrifice for the profit of the extremely rich? Is that your ideal world?
    Market rates are a result of supply and demand.

    That's why labor prices are going up--a lot of people left the labor market because of the pandemic.

  8. Top | #408
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    6,451
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    9,362
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    That isn't actually true. The concept of "fair" is what happens when probabilistically positive and negative behavior is rewarded based on an artificial allotment based on the probability rather than the probabilistic outcome, so as to allot rewards based on values and behaviors rather than randomizations.

    Some things must not be perfectly fair. Too much fairness robs a system of it's dynamism. But fairness certainly allows for more useful outcomes at selection; Too much individual variation against a core attribute makes it impossible to reliably prevent false negatives/positives on the axis of discrimination.

    It's really a matter of tuning the balance between fairness and probabilistics so as to encourage enough bad selection to guarantee the presence of abnormal or borderline capabilities (dynamism) but ensure that the majority of success happens because of work.

    Reality comes into it that this is going to create better outcomes for agents that adopt the strategy. We have adopted it, and the conclusion is "the system as it stands does not include enough fairness for optimal function".
    Present an objective means of measuring "fair".
    I already did:

    when probabilistically positive and negative behavior is rewarded based on an artificial allotment based on the probability rather than the probabilistic outcome
    This is what makes fair. It's fairly apparent to me that the means of measuring is to observe whether doing something with a "7:6 payout" is on the side of spitting out 7 for every 6 you put in, or whether it pays out 0 most times and then 6*7 the one time.

    A perfectly fair system returns the same output to every instance of input. Less fair systems are more winner take all. Lotteries are an example of an inherently unfair system.

  9. Top | #409
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    25,929
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    28,963
    Rep Power
    100
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.

  10. Top | #410
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,890
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,796
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Who do you think sets 'market rates?' If most of the profits/wealth flows into the hands of a small percentage of the population....who is regulating fair distribution of wealth for work performed in generating that wealth?

    The 'market?' I don't think so.

    Why should workers not get their share? Or are workers supposed to sacrifice for the profit of the extremely rich? Is that your ideal world?
    Market rates are a result of supply and demand.

    That's why labor prices are going up--a lot of people left the labor market because of the pandemic.
    Great demand does not necessarily translate in higher pay for workers, which typically means higher profits lining the deep pockets of those already very rich.

    Plus I have given many examples of the exploitation of vulnerable workers in the name of profit.

    You are not willing to consider the possibility that you are an apologist for excessive wealth and exploitation of vulnerable workers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •