You may have seen the news this week that a company called Golden Spike will be offering trips to the moon for $1.5 billion. First of all, I'll believe that when I see it. Though it may seem like an astronomical amount of money (pun not intended) that's no where near enough money to go to the moon. Presumably they're counting on a lot of people taking them up on the offer, and pooling the money into one big effort. I know, it sounds to be talking about economies of scale for a product with a cost in the billions, but it could happen in today's world. What I question is: are there really enough billionaires in the world that would part with a significant portion of their fortune for a one-off trip to the moon? Yes, the Russians have already carried paying customers into space; but that was for the relative pittance of $20 million. Most of those tourist astronauts couldn't afford this moon trip. But I do find this concept reassuring in one way: rich people could finally start spending money on impressive stuff, not just any old expensive thing.
Income disparity is a big concern these days. I'm not happy to see the income gap myself, but I do concede that it has one possible positive: New technologies and ideas - too expensive to enter mass-production - can be offered in smaller numbers at a higher price to the rich. We've already seen how lots of electronics can enter at the top of the market, gain customers and investors, then spread through all of society. To put it another way, I don't have much confidence in money trickling down, but technology often does.
Trouble is, a lot of what rich people buy is expensive but not really innovative. Look at an area I know: cars. The famously most expensive car in the world is the Bugatti Veyron. With a 250+mph top speed, it's certainly an impressive car. But technologically, it isn't much more advanced than your average compact. Yes, it has a thousand horsepower, but that's not because the engine is "better" than any other car, there's just more of it (16 cylinders and 8.0 litres to be exact; essentially the size of four compact car engines.) You could think of it as the car equivalent of a mansion: the large house isn't better at being a house than a suburban bungalow, there's just more of it. I don't know that much about the world of expensive products - I've been in the dark since Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous went off the air - but it seems this patter repeats itself in many areas: expensive things are big or rare, but not unprecedented and original.
Hopefully the super-rich will decide that putting millions of miles on the private jet is less impressive than one round-trip to the moon. I'd even let them keep the Bush tax cuts then.
Income disparity is a big concern these days. I'm not happy to see the income gap myself, but I do concede that it has one possible positive: New technologies and ideas - too expensive to enter mass-production - can be offered in smaller numbers at a higher price to the rich. We've already seen how lots of electronics can enter at the top of the market, gain customers and investors, then spread through all of society. To put it another way, I don't have much confidence in money trickling down, but technology often does.
Trouble is, a lot of what rich people buy is expensive but not really innovative. Look at an area I know: cars. The famously most expensive car in the world is the Bugatti Veyron. With a 250+mph top speed, it's certainly an impressive car. But technologically, it isn't much more advanced than your average compact. Yes, it has a thousand horsepower, but that's not because the engine is "better" than any other car, there's just more of it (16 cylinders and 8.0 litres to be exact; essentially the size of four compact car engines.) You could think of it as the car equivalent of a mansion: the large house isn't better at being a house than a suburban bungalow, there's just more of it. I don't know that much about the world of expensive products - I've been in the dark since Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous went off the air - but it seems this patter repeats itself in many areas: expensive things are big or rare, but not unprecedented and original.
Hopefully the super-rich will decide that putting millions of miles on the private jet is less impressive than one round-trip to the moon. I'd even let them keep the Bush tax cuts then.
No comments:
Post a Comment