The fact that the end product happens to be a yacht is largely irrelevant to the economic impact and value of this investment.
There very well will be hundreds of key innovations and significant investments in R&D, materials science, construction techniques, etc. that stem from the investment made into building this product.
The more money Bezos spends the better, and I’m personally glad he’s spending some of it on projects like this. Just because it’s privately owned doesn’t make it any less a of an incredible feat of engineering and accomplishment of human ingenuity.
It will also employ hundreds if not thousands of people for years into the future (maintenance is much more expensive than the initial build).
"The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . "
I'd be all in for superyachts like this were they used for public education, tourism, expeditions. Now it's going to just sit with 20 people on crew and be used twice a year.
Boats like these spend more on fuel while idling or relocating than when they are actually used by owner.
IMHO if you can't handle it by yourself then it's just too big.
No? Is there something special about this yacht outside of its size? Why would there be any innovation around it?
I'm sure it required at least 1 bit of special tooling, capacity, or engineering. Ignoring downstream innovation challenges, like the bridge. You don't think there is an opportunity for innovation there? Maybe they make improvements when they replace it
A biggest in the world sailing yacht will have hundreds of innovations just in construction of the masts. All the rigging is likely custom materials and hardware, they are probably using exotic techniques in all sorts of ways.
Also you don't necessarily want to innovate too much when you want to build something reliable.
Boats at this calibre take months if not years to iron out all the build kinks - it's custom made after all.
I'd love someone like Bezos or Musk to build a robotic dry stack of e-boats for public to use by subscription basis - something that can actually take innovating, can be scaled everywhere in the world, has positive impact (grid balancing) and is useful.
Not if it cranks up the global carbon footprint, and wastes resources better left in the ground. At some people we simply don't need to grant these people the "right" to build whatever ego-inflating toys they want, wherever they want.
Useless $500m boats like that simply shouldn't be built.
What it sounds like you're describing is communism, and it's an incredibly destructive and brutal philosophy to try to control people like this.
I have no issue with Bezos paying the full share of the net externalities of the project. I suspect a proper accounting would show significant net positive externalities to society, but if the scales were net negative then by all means tax it. I suspect that amount of taxes Bezos will pay all said and done as a result of this project are fairly astronomical.
To say that a person has no business or no right or no reason to build something incredible like this is beyond sad, it's a line of thinking that free democracies have gone to war against to protect themselves from.
To say this creation should not allowed to be built in any case, is IMO a violation of basic human rights and decency and crushing to the human spirit.
Edwardsville city officials identified the names of the six deceased on Sunday, who ranged in age from 26 to 62.
Among the victims identified by authorities was Larry Virden, 46, whose daughter Justice Virden told ABC News' Rob Marciano for "Good Morning America", "I walked out of that building after they told me my dad was gone, and I dropped to my knees and screamed at the sky at the top of my lungs."
"I said 'No, my dad's coming home," Justice Virden said. "'I need my daddy. He can't leave.'"
The same people who decide, for example, that you can't just chop down a forest of old-growth trees so that you can make a killing selling them as chopsticks.
Whom you are welcome to call "communists" if you want.
Depends:
> If we suppose that the goal of society is to produce the greatest utility, and that the utility wealth provides an individual is sub-linear (i.e. twice as much money makes you less than twice as happy), then inequality is inefficient resource allocation.
> However, we also suppose that some level of inequality can lead to greater productivity, and thus greater utility overall. The question is then what level produces the best outcome?
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342
At want point is the cut-off in the diminishing returns of utility/happiness?
500m dollar yacht seems like a good place to start, we can work our way back from there.
I'm not a fan of Elon Musk, but I feel much less negative about his ventures than about Bezos, simply because they are adding to the world of what is possible. Bezos' rockets seem like a "me too" thing. People often say expensive things are "status symbols". It appears that Musk really wants to make science fiction real, independently of what anyone else does, and I suspect Bezos of actually being obsessed with relative status. Who knows if that's fair, but that's how it looks.
1) there is not a consensus as to what an optimal economy looks like for reasons so numerous its unimaginable someone would make such a claim, but include things like: globalism vs nationalism, hedonism vs utilitarianism, militarism vs pacifism, importance of a problem vs tractability of a problem, etc ad infinitum.
2) even if there was somehow a consensus on what an optimal economy is, its a floating target. economics is based on intangibles like demand and peoples feelings. if such a thing were to exist, it couldnt exist for long and would require constant change.
3) what an optimal economy could even theoretically be requires knowledge of the future. if earth becomes uninhabitable in 1 year due to meteor impact, the optimal economy certainly doesnt involve anything but meteor detection and defense. or from volcanic eruption. or solor flare/ejection. or nuclear war.
do you bemoan a suboptimal economy when people buy 50 sneakers? or candy and soda? or have 5 TVs? or 3 computers? what does wealth inequality have to do with anything? what are you even talking about?
Sure, maybe this type of activity counts towards the GDP in the short term, but long term a giant yacht isn't capital that is going to give a return on the investment. For other metrics it is useless as well. It makes 1 person (and maybe his friends) a bit happier for an extreme cost. I think by most metrics this is a poor allocation of resources in the medium or long term. It's just an ultra rich guy spending a ton of capital to make himself happy.
Maybe this can help you to see how comments like yours in discussions about examples of extreme displays of wealth inequality might be the ones that actually drive people mad.
In both of those cases, wouldn't the creation of those assets require burning $500M in real stuff? Gold as well as Bitcoin costs what it costs because of the expense of mining, which is real peoples' lives, materials, and fuel burned.
If Bezos kept his $500M in Amazon stock or cash or something, then it would be just numbers and not waste.
What needs be recognized is that "allowing" Bezos to do this is not an ideological or engineering question between what is optimal or suboptimal. It's a question of how much confidence do we have in our interventions. Humans naturally engage in trade and acquisitive behaviors. There have been rich and powerful men for many millenia before Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations and capitalism became a philosophy. Commerce is a default, not an imposition.
The question is whether armchair hot takes, politicians, bureaucrats, economists, and ideologues are qualified to make confiscatory decisions against "the wealthy" that will not do more harm than good to society as a result. Our world is a system that is too complex to understand easily, or sometimes at all. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There isn't mass human misery resulting from this yacht, but preventing the order could lose people their jobs and have who-knows-what consequences. So maybe we should chill.
We don't live in a world that's big enough for millions of Bezos's to average out, so I think it's a fallacy to appeal to a laissez faire, free market approach. To the extent it works and seems logical, that's in the context of a huge economy with millions of people.
Bezos being the product of a (sort of) free market doesn't make his actions free-markety once he's attained his current level of power. Treating him as different from "politicians, bureaucrats, economists, and ideologues" is wrong because he's not fundamentally different.