On the other hand, making it cheap enough that mono-millionaires can do it regularly is going to make a big difference compared to the status quo.
Ah wait let me rephrase this: while more people can fly now economy got shittier than ever.
Also we live in 2022, the narrative that rich risk there life's was probably never true (they have test personal) and we have enough capital in our society to do certain things without the money of the rich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart#Childhood
> Earhart was the daughter of Samuel "Edwin" Stanton Earhart (1867–1930) and Amelia "Amy" (née Otis; 1869–1962).[13] She was born in Atchison, Kansas, in the home of her maternal grandfather, Alfred Gideon Otis (1827–1912), who was a former federal judge, the president of the Atchison Savings Bank and a leading citizen in the town. Amelia was the second child of the marriage after an infant was stillborn in August 1896.[14]
She for one, looks to me to have been wealthy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors_killed_by_th...
> and we have enough capital in our society to do certain things without the money of the rich.
Part of the reward for pioneering tech is the taking of the risk and getting the reward while at the end of the day being able to feel a sense of accomplishment having done it largely of your own initiative and cost. The spirit of exploration that existed in early humans, that led to our expansion to the furthest points of the earth, exists today in the form of innovation and invention. While it is enticing of course to create at the behest of government or corporations like was done in Bell Labs or DARPA, there is a severe risk that liabilities and bureaucracy stifle innovation. I cannot imagine a governmental system of incentives that creates an atmosphere quite like the USA had prior to the 1960s that led to innovation, invention, and implementation that we had never seen before, and may never see again.
Blockchain was supposedly created by a single person. The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States has mentioned creating a digital currency. As they pump more money into that idea and develop some neat tweaks or totally control blockchains, will we look back in 50 years and say, "Look at how much the government did for blockchain." forgetting that it exists in the first place to spite them?
Ah right, moving it from 0.1%-ers to 1%-ers is really going to make a big difference.
It's hard to find precise qualifications for how they determine that, though. The households figure doesn't include primary residence value (why?), and the individual statistics don't mention liquidity. I suspect that only a small percent of that 8% actually has $1+ million liquid.
So yeah, 4%-ers then. Really makes a big difference to my point. This is totally gonna change everybody's life. (I.e. those who can afford it, while the majority is scraping by from paycheck to paycheck.)
This is dangerously close to the infamous HN Dropbox critique[1] :-D
And it's likely wrong in the same way.