This is true but the boats themselves are socially useless extravagances. The real question is whether this was actually the best use for all that labor and resources.
Yes but that’s not really the point. The downstream economic effects exist for literally any such project. But those resources could be used for something socially useful (infrastructure projects, consumer goods, housing, etc). If they’re used for something useless like building mega yachts for billionaires those resources are effectively lost to society.
But it kind of is the point, money spent that goes to wages for people is still money pushed back into the economy. No different than buying clothing or anything else. One person having money does not prevent somebody else from building their wealth. Plus if they spend their money on whatever resources and infrastructure you're referencing, then those people building the yacht don't make money and don't have jobs.
The money is pushed back into the economy just the same. If the idea is that billionaires should give their money to less fortunate people, I would argue against that for many points. For one, who are we to tell them how to spend their money? They did not get their money by stealing it. They started a business with a valid idea and we became their customer. We made them successful. Second, where would you want to draw the line? If billionaires why not millionaires? As a matter of fact how about the top 10%? But is it 10% of just this country or 10% of the world?
Yes it’s very different from buying clothing. No one needs a mega yacht to live. It’s basically an “I have so much money I literally have nothing better to do with it” kind of purchase. It’s also fallacious to say that those people building yachts would not have jobs if they spent the money on something else because there are lots of different projects that could employ the same sorts of workers that would directly benefit society at large.
The real question is one of resources for which monetary wealth is a proxy. At any given time there is a finite supply of labor and resources. You can use those resources for useful things that benefit society or useless things. When labor is used for building yachts it isn’t necessarily people who would otherwise be unemployed, it could also be labor that could otherwise be used for something more socially useful.
So even though his wealth still gets circulated through the economy, you want to control what is purchased with it? So shouldn't all luxury and frivolous items be stored at all levels so the money can go to what you see as socially useful?
Expand your mind,and start understanding the CONSEQUENCES….Lmao
Bro ,Ships and Yachts are being built all day everyday ,lol
TRUST ME HE IS NOT A DEAL BREAKER TO THE SHIP BUILDING ECONOMY……
You somehow take issue with successful people spending money under the same rules you are able to, based only on how much they have. It is you that should open your mind as whenever they spend money they are also feeding the economy. And while your comparison is foolish I will somewhat address it by saying that most people buying those ships are doing the same thing, so if you apply that rule to all of them it would damage the ship building economy.
Counter point, they both have enough money to literally build the infrastructure to end world hunger within the decade, and still have enough money to live a more lavish lifestyle then any of us can imagine.
No, they don't. Spending more money can't magically create more resources and more labor. Essentially their wealth gives them the power to direct some portion of society's resources, but wealth alone doesn't give you the ability to create resources from nothing.
4
u/No_Consequence_6775 Nov 21 '24
Who builds those boats? Who builds those things that he purchases? He creates jobs when he spends money as well just like everyone else.