Utopia Talk - Politics - $105 trillion soon to be inherited

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sun Dec 22 05:47:25 PST 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / $105 trillion soon to be inherited

murder
Member Sat Dec 14 21:02:40
Cerulli projects that wealth transferred through 2048 will total $124 trillion—$105 trillion is expected to flow to heirs, while $18 trillion will go to charity. Nearly $100 trillion will be transferred from Baby Boomers and older generations, representing 81% of all transfers. More than 50% of the overall total volume of transfers ($62 trillion) is expected to come from those who are currently high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth (HNW/UHNW), which together make up only 2% of all households.

http://www...lth-will-transfer-through-2048

jergul
large member Sun Dec 15 00:48:53
That is why it is so important to say no to a death tax. I feel for the HNW/UHNW individuals.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Sun Dec 15 02:08:10
Why is this a problem? Either the descendants are dumb and will blow the riches and then all the wealth will recirculate or they are good at manages capital, at which point society will keep benefiting from their skills managing capital and companies etc. This has been studied to death. It is quite rare that wealth is inherited more than one generation.

This is a complete non-issue and has always been.

jergul
large member Sun Dec 15 02:14:00
Well, the problem is that without a death tax, wealth will accumulate into fewer and fewer hands as generations pass. Yes, sure, they will invest. For example in property or rental units.

Its fine for as long as you don't mind unaffordable housing. Not a problem in small town Sweden yet, obviously. But there is one of the reasons you are living in small town Sweden. Fancy a house with a yard in Stockholm? Well, that has been off the table for decades.

Piketty made a famous and conclusive analysis of this in "Capital in the 21st century".

jergul
large member Sun Dec 15 02:19:37
In the US, a significant portion of that wealth passed on is public debt financed. Basically, the government borrowing money, then handing it off to high income individuals by way of market mechanisms. The trend is accelerating, because, well, if milk is running dry, then best scoop up as much cream as possible before it does.

Our Oil Fund benefits tremendously from such things. Very nice (borat voice).

Seb
Member Sun Dec 15 02:27:55
Nim:

If you look at history, generally such situations result in political reform of the violent and disruptive type.

jergul
large member Sun Dec 15 03:14:41
Seb
That may not be a downside from Nimi's perspective. It certainly is not from CC's. No insult intended to those two. I was aiming for a statement of fact.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Sun Dec 15 04:54:41
”will accumulate into fewer and fewer hands as generations pass.”

This has nothing to do with inheritance. Wealth generated over one generation rarely survive more than 2 generations.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Sun Dec 15 05:08:33
You guys are proposing a solutions that would do absolutely nothing to fix the problem you are talking about. Take a look at the richest capitalist and appreciate how many of them came from far humbler backgrounds.

jergul
large member Sun Dec 15 05:52:05
Nimi
That is sort of what accumulation means. It accumulates into the hands of a few.

I see the point you are raising. That most people that inherit end up spending the money. As they must as inheritance is a form of retirement savings for many.

All statistics show that the 1% is nabbing most of the wealth. Like way more that 50% most of the wealth.

Musk - son of a SA diamond mine owner
Bezos - stepdad billionaire
Zuckerberg - upper middleclass, access to harvard paying full tuition.
Ellison - Legit point. He was pretty normal.
Buffet - Son of a congressman
Ballmere - Affluent. Again Harvard full tuition payment.

Sam Adams
Member Sun Dec 15 10:56:12
Wealth does tend to converge into intelligent familes, who then have intelligent kids.

The wealth inequality in the US is a little higher than ideal i think. An inheritance tax of say 50% above 10m would be fair.

Seb
Member Sun Dec 15 17:04:38
If they are intelligent, then they can make their own wealth though. The reality is with that advantage they can force the sale of the intelligence of others. Cf. tech giants casually appropriating others intellectual property in the name of progress, dragging out court cases until their victims go bust, or buying legislation to validate the theft. That's not smart, that's just feudalism: "king ruled in my favour cause I paid for a troop of horse, now give me your stuff".

It's not good for progress really. Or society.

There should be a limit on what you can leave.

Also the robber-barons of this gilded age are doing substantially less public works than in years gone by.

murder
Member Sun Dec 15 17:12:03

"If they are intelligent, then they can make their own wealth though."

The children of the ultra wealthy can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Sam Adams
Member Sun Dec 15 23:38:59
"the robber-barons of this gilded age are doing substantially less public works"

Musk is trying to lead humanity into space.

If thats successful its worth more than all other philanthropy ever combined.

Bezos too but hes 5 years behind.

Like they are being nasa but with their own cash. Thats way more epic than some weenie buying havard a library.

Sam Adams
Member Sun Dec 15 23:40:38
But ya you dont want all the cash to pool to too small a population.

Seb
Member Mon Dec 16 00:47:30
Musk is trying to lead people into space in the same way he tired to build a mass transit system in California.

Seb
Member Mon Dec 16 01:17:06
Is it the plans to nix vaccines by the bag men running the govt for the billionaires that bought it that convinced you of that?

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Mon Dec 16 03:58:45
Jergul
None of the people you listed have inherited anything. But I am sure both Musk and Bezos can't wait to inherit their families' fortunes.

Those people had a privileged upbringing, and the "death tax" would not change that. I am not even sure you want to go there, that parents who have done good can make good for their kids. Even in countries like ours, privileged families created privileged environments for their kids.

There is the issue of concentration of wealth, and then there is the false idea that this is happening because wealth is inherited and staying within a lineage. This effect is demolished by regression to the mean. Children to an exceptional parent are rarely exceptional themselves.

I will forgive your retardation, Jergul, and that you have forgotten the numerous times I have said that the problem with extremely wealthy people is the asymmetrical influence they have on governance (I don't give a shit about the material stuff or that they can put their kids in fancy schools). Pretty sure I introduced you and this forum to Peter Turchin's work. It is a problem, however, none of this will be solved with a death tax.

jergul
large member Mon Dec 16 05:50:55
Nimi
You claimed "far humbler backgrounds" I checked and noted you were in error. I know offhand that Bezos got the start capital for Amazon from his parents. But you acknowledge that with "privileged upbringing, so fair enough".

Effective inheritance taxes hinder wealth accumulation into fewer and fewer hands over the generations.

No worries on the fluff you add to your posts btw. You do what you have to do to fill a paragraph <3

Sam Adams
Member Mon Dec 16 11:42:08
"Musk is trying to lead people into space in the same way he tired to build a mass transit system in California."

Doesnt matter how he does it or if you whine. If musk actually succeeds or even comes close to landing the first man on mars with his own cash he'll be a global hero forever.

murder
Member Mon Dec 16 11:50:38

When the fuck has Elon done anything with his own money?

Forget Mars. Do you know why Elon hasn't landed anyone on the Moon yet? He's waiting for Uncle Sam to finance it for him.

Every single thing he does is sucking on the taxpayers teat.

-

Rugian
Member Mon Dec 16 12:44:51
Also, mass transit in California is impossible for Musk or anyone else to pull off.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail

Going to the Moon is literally easier than laying HSR from Merced to Bakersfield.

Sam Adams
Member Mon Dec 16 13:10:10
"Going to the Moon is literally easier than laying HSR from Merced to Bakersfield."

Lol seb himself couldnt have come up with a beurocratic minefield any more fucked than cali

Seb
Member Mon Dec 16 14:55:07
Sam:

"Doesnt matter how he does it"
I think the reference went over your head. He's on record as saying his main goal in hyperloop was never to succeed, but because he saw mass transit systems as a threat to tesla sales. Hyperloop was his way of de-railing (hoho) rail schemes with a flashy alternative that would go nowhere.

"If musk actually succeeds or even comes close to landing the first man on mars with his own cash he'll be a global hero forever."

He might do such a stunt, but I am not that convinced he is really interested in colonising mars. I think his goal is more about dominating communications and defence aspects of earth orbit, and govt subsidies from the nasa budget. The visionary spacefaring species stuff is bullshit.

You can tell (like the Iranian "civil" nuclear program) by what is missing. All the effort on launch vehicles and none on the boring unsexy other stuff you need to make the program actually work.

Seb
Member Mon Dec 16 14:56:12
Still, SpaceX is quite a cool company otherwise, with an amazing team. Partly because they appear to have people of keeping Musk well away from most important decisions.

Sam Adams
Member Mon Dec 16 15:12:41
Launch vehicles are the main $ problem. First things first. A manned landing will inspire a generation of future scientists and maybe colonists.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Tue Dec 17 03:28:01
"jergul
large member Mon Dec 16 05:50:55
Nimi
You claimed "far humbler backgrounds" I checked and noted you were in error. I know offhand that Bezos got the start capital for Amazon from his parents."

Yes, as a relative term, not in the absolute sense according to whatever subjective metric you or I have. Congruent with accumulation. You provided a list of 6 people, which is in no way representative for reality and now you concentrate specifically on Bezos. And these are all non-sequitur problems with your argument, because a death tax would not solve the issue you have goal post shifted into. None of these people inherited anything, Bezos at best got a family angel investment. None of these issues would be solved with an inheritance tax. Are you actually for really so retarded that you do not understand that they things you are arguing (waaaa priviledge background) are completely disconnected from the problem in the OP accumulation of wealth due to inheritance (which is a myth).

"Effective inheritance taxes hinder wealth accumulation into fewer and fewer hands over the generations."

Ah you have fallen back into the moronic myth which is demonstrably false*. Your behavior in this thread is the leftist retardation in a nutshell, too stupid to address the problems it's own analysis illuminates. Too stupid to learn.

*Even if the myth was not a myth, none of the examples you brought up and the problem you point to (people who have not inherited anything from dead relatives to then build their even bigger fortune, they were just rich kids), would be addressed by a death tax.

You are literally too stupid to tell the difference between an apple and an orange.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Tue Dec 17 03:38:13
"Yes, as a relative term, not in the absolute sense"

It is in fact inherent to the word "humblER" which comparative and in relation to something, e.g Bezos compared to where he is came from a humbler background, instead of "Bezos comes from a humble background" which denotes a more absolute meaning of the.

Reading comprehension fails, as the frustration of being wrong and retarded reaches a critical level.

Cherub Cow, you see what I mean?

jergul
large member Tue Dec 17 03:50:43
Nimi
Its cool, cutie <3. I understand why you always have to coax what you write into imaginary "gotcha"

Very cute also that you are using CC in your appeal to authority smokescreen. I am sure she will be touched <3.

Seb
Member Tue Dec 17 13:16:06
Sam:

I'm not sure that's true. Operationally launch is expensive it's true.

In terms of how you actually *survive* on mars - we don't actually know how to do that.

Seb
Member Tue Dec 17 14:03:04
Addendum: and therefore how much it costs.

Seb
Member Tue Dec 17 14:07:22
The other thing to watch out for is the possibility he's compromised like a fair few other businessmen.

Starlink is increasingly important, and if it turned out that Russia or China have access to even meta data, it could be a horrible issue.

It's been reported omething like 10 close military allies of the US have flagged concerns over Musk in relation to intelligence and security issues with the DoD.

Monopolising launch and then becoming a critical supplier of launch and LEO services to the DoD is a hell of a target.

Seb
Member Tue Dec 17 16:38:30
http://www...foreign-leaders-213817035.html

Major US defence contractor, owns and controls a key part of your infosphere, member of the incoming admin; and he's having secret meetings with one of your biggest enemies head of state and refusing to disclose it, while also failing to enforce security rules and procedures in a key defense contractor. What could possibly go wrong.

Meanwhile his personal Twitter usage suggests he barely sleeps anymore.

You should probably consider he's basically using all this Mars stuff as a publicity smokescreen to help avoid accountability for building the kind of mesh of political, state and industrial power base along the lines of russian Oligarchs in the mid to late 90s.

murder
Member Tue Dec 17 16:57:24

All I know is that next March is SpaceX's 23rd anniversary ... and he's still stuck in low earth orbit more than half a century after NASA put men on the moon.

The next crewed lunar landing mission isn't scheduled until 2027. You'd think that Elon in all his Musky genius would just move ahead without NASA and its other partners, but he seems unwilling or unable.

And that's just the moon.

-

Seb
Member Tue Dec 17 17:29:50
There's no profit in it.

Pretty sure starship could do it and that's on track.

And he could probably do it with falcon and dragon the same way the Russians planned to do it with Soyuz.

Sam Adams
Member Tue Dec 17 19:36:14
"Some SpaceX workers with knowledge of the reviews expressed their concerns to the Times"

Lol. I'm sure thats highly accurate.

"You'd think that Elon in all his Musky genius would just move ahead without NASA and its other partners, but he seems unwilling or unable."

True. He does need a landing to get the credit.

jergul
large member Wed Dec 18 02:31:32
I suddenly got a strange feeling that limiting anti trust activity may become one of DOGE's primary goals. Musk would not want to be Mabell'ed

murder
Member Wed Dec 18 06:11:19

http://www...-americas-top-20-billionaires/

-

williamthebastard
Member Wed Dec 18 18:26:05
"The free market will give immense power to mediocre people" - Nietzsche paraphrased (cant remember his exact wording)

williamthebastard
Member Wed Dec 18 18:28:06
the "nihilistic market", as he called it

show deleted posts

murder Member	Sat Dec 14 21:02:40 Cerulli projects that wealth transferred through 2048 will total $124 trillion—$105 trillion is expected to flow to heirs, while $18 trillion will go to charity. Nearly $100 trillion will be transferred from Baby Boomers and older generations, representing 81% of all transfers. More than 50% of the overall total volume of transfers ($62 trillion) is expected to come from those who are currently high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth (HNW/UHNW), which together make up only 2% of all households. http://www...lth-will-transfer-through-2048
jergul large member	Sun Dec 15 00:48:53 That is why it is so important to say no to a death tax. I feel for the HNW/UHNW individuals.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Dec 15 02:08:10 Why is this a problem? Either the descendants are dumb and will blow the riches and then all the wealth will recirculate or they are good at manages capital, at which point society will keep benefiting from their skills managing capital and companies etc. This has been studied to death. It is quite rare that wealth is inherited more than one generation. This is a complete non-issue and has always been.
jergul large member	Sun Dec 15 02:14:00 Well, the problem is that without a death tax, wealth will accumulate into fewer and fewer hands as generations pass. Yes, sure, they will invest. For example in property or rental units. Its fine for as long as you don't mind unaffordable housing. Not a problem in small town Sweden yet, obviously. But there is one of the reasons you are living in small town Sweden. Fancy a house with a yard in Stockholm? Well, that has been off the table for decades. Piketty made a famous and conclusive analysis of this in "Capital in the 21st century".
jergul large member	Sun Dec 15 02:19:37 In the US, a significant portion of that wealth passed on is public debt financed. Basically, the government borrowing money, then handing it off to high income individuals by way of market mechanisms. The trend is accelerating, because, well, if milk is running dry, then best scoop up as much cream as possible before it does. Our Oil Fund benefits tremendously from such things. Very nice (borat voice).
Seb Member	Sun Dec 15 02:27:55 Nim: If you look at history, generally such situations result in political reform of the violent and disruptive type.
jergul large member	Sun Dec 15 03:14:41 Seb That may not be a downside from Nimi's perspective. It certainly is not from CC's. No insult intended to those two. I was aiming for a statement of fact.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Dec 15 04:54:41 ”will accumulate into fewer and fewer hands as generations pass.” This has nothing to do with inheritance. Wealth generated over one generation rarely survive more than 2 generations.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Dec 15 05:08:33 You guys are proposing a solutions that would do absolutely nothing to fix the problem you are talking about. Take a look at the richest capitalist and appreciate how many of them came from far humbler backgrounds.
jergul large member	Sun Dec 15 05:52:05 Nimi That is sort of what accumulation means. It accumulates into the hands of a few. I see the point you are raising. That most people that inherit end up spending the money. As they must as inheritance is a form of retirement savings for many. All statistics show that the 1% is nabbing most of the wealth. Like way more that 50% most of the wealth. Musk - son of a SA diamond mine owner Bezos - stepdad billionaire Zuckerberg - upper middleclass, access to harvard paying full tuition. Ellison - Legit point. He was pretty normal. Buffet - Son of a congressman Ballmere - Affluent. Again Harvard full tuition payment.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Dec 15 10:56:12 Wealth does tend to converge into intelligent familes, who then have intelligent kids. The wealth inequality in the US is a little higher than ideal i think. An inheritance tax of say 50% above 10m would be fair.
Seb Member	Sun Dec 15 17:04:38 If they are intelligent, then they can make their own wealth though. The reality is with that advantage they can force the sale of the intelligence of others. Cf. tech giants casually appropriating others intellectual property in the name of progress, dragging out court cases until their victims go bust, or buying legislation to validate the theft. That's not smart, that's just feudalism: "king ruled in my favour cause I paid for a troop of horse, now give me your stuff". It's not good for progress really. Or society. There should be a limit on what you can leave. Also the robber-barons of this gilded age are doing substantially less public works than in years gone by.
murder Member	Sun Dec 15 17:12:03 "If they are intelligent, then they can make their own wealth though." The children of the ultra wealthy can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Dec 15 23:38:59 "the robber-barons of this gilded age are doing substantially less public works" Musk is trying to lead humanity into space. If thats successful its worth more than all other philanthropy ever combined. Bezos too but hes 5 years behind. Like they are being nasa but with their own cash. Thats way more epic than some weenie buying havard a library.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Dec 15 23:40:38 But ya you dont want all the cash to pool to too small a population.
Seb Member	Mon Dec 16 00:47:30 Musk is trying to lead people into space in the same way he tired to build a mass transit system in California.
Seb Member	Mon Dec 16 01:17:06 Is it the plans to nix vaccines by the bag men running the govt for the billionaires that bought it that convinced you of that?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Dec 16 03:58:45 Jergul None of the people you listed have inherited anything. But I am sure both Musk and Bezos can't wait to inherit their families' fortunes. Those people had a privileged upbringing, and the "death tax" would not change that. I am not even sure you want to go there, that parents who have done good can make good for their kids. Even in countries like ours, privileged families created privileged environments for their kids. There is the issue of concentration of wealth, and then there is the false idea that this is happening because wealth is inherited and staying within a lineage. This effect is demolished by regression to the mean. Children to an exceptional parent are rarely exceptional themselves. I will forgive your retardation, Jergul, and that you have forgotten the numerous times I have said that the problem with extremely wealthy people is the asymmetrical influence they have on governance (I don't give a shit about the material stuff or that they can put their kids in fancy schools). Pretty sure I introduced you and this forum to Peter Turchin's work. It is a problem, however, none of this will be solved with a death tax.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 16 05:50:55 Nimi You claimed "far humbler backgrounds" I checked and noted you were in error. I know offhand that Bezos got the start capital for Amazon from his parents. But you acknowledge that with "privileged upbringing, so fair enough". Effective inheritance taxes hinder wealth accumulation into fewer and fewer hands over the generations. No worries on the fluff you add to your posts btw. You do what you have to do to fill a paragraph <3
Sam Adams Member	Mon Dec 16 11:42:08 "Musk is trying to lead people into space in the same way he tired to build a mass transit system in California." Doesnt matter how he does it or if you whine. If musk actually succeeds or even comes close to landing the first man on mars with his own cash he'll be a global hero forever.
murder Member	Mon Dec 16 11:50:38 When the fuck has Elon done anything with his own money? Forget Mars. Do you know why Elon hasn't landed anyone on the Moon yet? He's waiting for Uncle Sam to finance it for him. Every single thing he does is sucking on the taxpayers teat. -
Rugian Member	Mon Dec 16 12:44:51 Also, mass transit in California is impossible for Musk or anyone else to pull off. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail Going to the Moon is literally easier than laying HSR from Merced to Bakersfield.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Dec 16 13:10:10 "Going to the Moon is literally easier than laying HSR from Merced to Bakersfield." Lol seb himself couldnt have come up with a beurocratic minefield any more fucked than cali
Seb Member	Mon Dec 16 14:55:07 Sam: "Doesnt matter how he does it" I think the reference went over your head. He's on record as saying his main goal in hyperloop was never to succeed, but because he saw mass transit systems as a threat to tesla sales. Hyperloop was his way of de-railing (hoho) rail schemes with a flashy alternative that would go nowhere. "If musk actually succeeds or even comes close to landing the first man on mars with his own cash he'll be a global hero forever." He might do such a stunt, but I am not that convinced he is really interested in colonising mars. I think his goal is more about dominating communications and defence aspects of earth orbit, and govt subsidies from the nasa budget. The visionary spacefaring species stuff is bullshit. You can tell (like the Iranian "civil" nuclear program) by what is missing. All the effort on launch vehicles and none on the boring unsexy other stuff you need to make the program actually work.
Seb Member	Mon Dec 16 14:56:12 Still, SpaceX is quite a cool company otherwise, with an amazing team. Partly because they appear to have people of keeping Musk well away from most important decisions.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Dec 16 15:12:41 Launch vehicles are the main $ problem. First things first. A manned landing will inspire a generation of future scientists and maybe colonists.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 17 03:28:01 "jergul large member Mon Dec 16 05:50:55 Nimi You claimed "far humbler backgrounds" I checked and noted you were in error. I know offhand that Bezos got the start capital for Amazon from his parents." Yes, as a relative term, not in the absolute sense according to whatever subjective metric you or I have. Congruent with accumulation. You provided a list of 6 people, which is in no way representative for reality and now you concentrate specifically on Bezos. And these are all non-sequitur problems with your argument, because a death tax would not solve the issue you have goal post shifted into. None of these people inherited anything, Bezos at best got a family angel investment. None of these issues would be solved with an inheritance tax. Are you actually for really so retarded that you do not understand that they things you are arguing (waaaa priviledge background) are completely disconnected from the problem in the OP accumulation of wealth due to inheritance (which is a myth). "Effective inheritance taxes hinder wealth accumulation into fewer and fewer hands over the generations." Ah you have fallen back into the moronic myth which is demonstrably false. Your behavior in this thread is the leftist retardation in a nutshell, too stupid to address the problems it's own analysis illuminates. Too stupid to learn. Even if the myth was not a myth, none of the examples you brought up and the problem you point to (people who have not inherited anything from dead relatives to then build their even bigger fortune, they were just rich kids), would be addressed by a death tax. You are literally too stupid to tell the difference between an apple and an orange.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 17 03:38:13 "Yes, as a relative term, not in the absolute sense" It is in fact inherent to the word "humblER" which comparative and in relation to something, e.g Bezos compared to where he is came from a humbler background, instead of "Bezos comes from a humble background" which denotes a more absolute meaning of the. Reading comprehension fails, as the frustration of being wrong and retarded reaches a critical level. Cherub Cow, you see what I mean?
jergul large member	Tue Dec 17 03:50:43 Nimi Its cool, cutie <3. I understand why you always have to coax what you write into imaginary "gotcha" Very cute also that you are using CC in your appeal to authority smokescreen. I am sure she will be touched <3.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 17 13:16:06 Sam: I'm not sure that's true. Operationally launch is expensive it's true. In terms of how you actually survive on mars - we don't actually know how to do that.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 17 14:03:04 Addendum: and therefore how much it costs.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 17 14:07:22 The other thing to watch out for is the possibility he's compromised like a fair few other businessmen. Starlink is increasingly important, and if it turned out that Russia or China have access to even meta data, it could be a horrible issue. It's been reported omething like 10 close military allies of the US have flagged concerns over Musk in relation to intelligence and security issues with the DoD. Monopolising launch and then becoming a critical supplier of launch and LEO services to the DoD is a hell of a target.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 17 16:38:30 http://www...foreign-leaders-213817035.html Major US defence contractor, owns and controls a key part of your infosphere, member of the incoming admin; and he's having secret meetings with one of your biggest enemies head of state and refusing to disclose it, while also failing to enforce security rules and procedures in a key defense contractor. What could possibly go wrong. Meanwhile his personal Twitter usage suggests he barely sleeps anymore. You should probably consider he's basically using all this Mars stuff as a publicity smokescreen to help avoid accountability for building the kind of mesh of political, state and industrial power base along the lines of russian Oligarchs in the mid to late 90s.
murder Member	Tue Dec 17 16:57:24 All I know is that next March is SpaceX's 23rd anniversary ... and he's still stuck in low earth orbit more than half a century after NASA put men on the moon. The next crewed lunar landing mission isn't scheduled until 2027. You'd think that Elon in all his Musky genius would just move ahead without NASA and its other partners, but he seems unwilling or unable. And that's just the moon. -
Seb Member	Tue Dec 17 17:29:50 There's no profit in it. Pretty sure starship could do it and that's on track. And he could probably do it with falcon and dragon the same way the Russians planned to do it with Soyuz.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Dec 17 19:36:14 "Some SpaceX workers with knowledge of the reviews expressed their concerns to the Times" Lol. I'm sure thats highly accurate. "You'd think that Elon in all his Musky genius would just move ahead without NASA and its other partners, but he seems unwilling or unable." True. He does need a landing to get the credit.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 18 02:31:32 I suddenly got a strange feeling that limiting anti trust activity may become one of DOGE's primary goals. Musk would not want to be Mabell'ed
murder Member	Wed Dec 18 06:11:19 http://www...-americas-top-20-billionaires/ -
williamthebastard Member	Wed Dec 18 18:26:05 "The free market will give immense power to mediocre people" - Nietzsche paraphrased (cant remember his exact wording)
williamthebastard Member	Wed Dec 18 18:28:06 the "nihilistic market", as he called it
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: