by Russel Norman
It seems the ever expanding super wealthy have a new toy – their own private submarines. According to this article, the super rich are snapping up their own subs at US$80m a pop. In a world of shrinking resources and masses of people extremely short of resources surely there are better things that we can do than build luxury subs for the super rich.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Russel Norman on Thu, July 26th, 2007
Tags: environment
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
It depends how well they are built. Submarines are fairly fickle and dangerous things. In terms of reducing overall commodity consumption, it might be worth $80 million apiece if a few super rich knock themselves off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Who’s this “we” Russel? I’m not building a submarine, why are you? Who else is doing it with you?
I guess all those employed making submarines, sourcing the raw materials, designing them, maintaining them – in other words all those getting their share of this, don’t matter? or are you really a fascist at heart and would take the money off the rich, until you find they can’t be bothered taking risks anymore and there is nobody rich left?
You can’t even write a post decrying gulags where children from birth are held as political prisoners with their parents and worked as slaves when they are old enough to, but you get off worrying about a handful of people buying subs?
and you wonder why some on the left are simply branded as envy, success hating fascists?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
keep yous mind on the job dude,
get another writer,
get up front with jeanette,
and get into hive of activity going on,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
THE HIGHWAY MEN
by Bill Bonner, The Daily Reckoning
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/Issues/2007/DR012607.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The submarines themselves are not a particularly important issue. There are not so many of them that they will contribute that much to resource depletion. What is the issue is the underlying inequality that the submarines represent. And anyone dismissing calls for a more even distribution of resources as envy does not understand social justice. For one thing, the extremely rich do not generally become rich by working harder than the rest of us.
Up to a certain extent, the more you work the wealthier you can become, but after that point has been reached then wealth is a matter of hereditary privilege, laws that favour the rich getting richer or straight out theft of resources from others. The kind of theft that results in the sort of slavery Liberty Scott was talking about.
And even if there was a direct correlation between working hard and becoming wealthy, where is it written that insatiable greed is a good thing. Most religions and philosophies for the past 5000 years have come to the conclusion that accumulation of wealth is not something we should strive for, and many have made comments about eyes of needles or similar such metaphores. What special insight does modern right wing capitalism have that it thinks it can dismiss the cumulative wisdom of ages in such a way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well hold on, who “distributes” resources? There isn’t some supreme leader who does this (except the worst examples of totalitarianism). The extremely rich generally (excluding politicians and kleptocrats) do become rich by being more productive and supplying goods and services people want, better than most.
You can’t say that “Up to a certain extent, the more you work the wealthier you can become, but after that point has been reached then wealth is a matter of hereditary privilege” as a fact. How has Bill Gates made money from hereditary privilege? What is a law that favours the rich getting richer? Property righs? What law favours theft?
Kiore the sort of slavery I am talking about is in the most vehemently anti-capitalist country on earth.
Who said insatiable greed is a good thing? Most religions and philosophies also subscribe to the notion that people have duties to the state or god, and that individual freedom should be sacrificed to some “higher cause” usually involving the supernatural or whatever utopian vision some planner (Hitler, Lenin, et al) wants.
I simply believe people should be able to live their lives as they wish as long as they don’t apply force to the bodies and property of others. What special insight does supernaturalism or collectivist statism give that is superior to the non initiation of force principle?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
LibertyScott
“Well hold on, who “distributesâ€? resources?”
Governments usually do and of course politicians and beauracrats are so honest and incorruptible.
“The extremely rich generally (excluding politicians and kleptocrats) do become rich by being more productive and supplying goods and services people want, better than most.”
No libertyscott. Its the engineers, technicians, scientists, programmers, inventors that are responsible for the increases in productivity and supplying the goods and services that others want, not the corporate beauracrats and financial whizs that take the majority of the spoils.
“What is a law that favours the rich getting richer? Property righs? What law favours theft?”
Abuse of copy right laws.
Abuse of patent laws.
Issuing themselves stock options and engaging in insider trading. Faye-Richwhite were a good example of this. The $20 million that the SFO won from them was only pocket change for those guys and they didn’t even have to accept liability for what they’d done.
Abuse of the US Constitution. (Using the 14th Amendment to grant corporations, “personhood”.
Taking advantage of governments’ lack of will to break monopolistic behaviour (trusts/cartels, especially prevalent during the era of J.P. Morgan.
“Corporate Welfare” or wealthfare as I like to call it.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb106/hb106-7.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-33.pdf
Abuse of eminent domain
“On June 23, 2006 – on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for “public use” with “just compensation”, which is also stated in the constitution, for the “purpose of benefiting the general public.” He limits this use by stating that it may not be used “for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.”[7]
However, during the Bush administration, the U.S. Supreme Court has diluted the meaning of “public use” to such an extent that virtually anything that a local condemning authority declares to be “public use” will be accepted by the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, effectively nullifying anything the President’s executive order stated.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain#Safeguards_against_governm ent_action
And this is only in the US. Imagine what corrupt governments in the Third World allow TNCs to do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And adding to Treehugger’s list, abuse of animal welfare laws, which allow agribusinesses to become wealthy at the expense of the animals they exploit. In third world countries, they can abuse labour laws in the same way. So that while New Zealand has factory farming of chickens and pigs, in China there is also factory farming of human workers.
In addition, the pharmaceutical companies and meat and dairy companies can use their massive wealth to spread misinformation about eg the health effects of beef and lamb or the supposed benefit of animal testing. They also have the ear of ministers because they can afford better lobbyists. This allows them to get laws passed which are favorable to them becoming even richer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Governments usually do and of course politicians and beauracrats are so honest and incorruptible.” Well the Greens support that more than any party. Most resources are created or discovered, not allocated – and governments tends to make things worse as you seem to imply!
“No libertyscott. Its the engineers, technicians, scientists, programmers, inventors that are responsible for the increases in productivity and supplying the goods and services that others want, not the corporate beauracrats and financial whizs that take the majority of the spoils. ”
Oh so these people get paid for doing nothing? Why pay them then given that almost all business strive for efficiency and eliminating waste? Maybe they are doing things you don’t understand like managing debt, attracting investors, in others words looking after the interests of the people who own the business the people YOU list are working for. You think Microsoft would be a roaring success if it was run entirely by software developers? Sheesh.
“What is a law that favours the rich getting richer? Property righs? What law favours theft?â€? Abuse of copy right laws. Abuse of patent laws.
Well those are ABUSES of laws, go on enforce them then. I’m against corporate welfare more than the Greens (who love subsidising a helluva lot) and I’m against eminent domain which is an outrageous infringement on private property rights. None of that has anything to do with capitalism, but is a corruption of it.
So you’re opposing corporatist capitalism with big government, not laissez-faire capitalism without state subsidies or protectionism or the destruction of property rights (land and intellectual).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Liberty
Any children of Bill Gates will inherit the money he “stole” through his abusive and monopolistic practices. Once the pile is big enough it actually becomes difficult (* though not impossible *) for any fool heir to actually destroy it.
Reminded of the ancient joke about how to make a small fortune through the restoration and collection of antique cars. The secret is to start with a large fortune.
Back on topic however, the point Kiore1 was making isn’t that the original fortune HAS to be inherited, just that once the pile gets big enough it attracts lawyers and managers and the like who protect it and nurture its growth. Even a legitimate heir will have a hard time getting his pet private space station project past the safeguards… can if he/she is DETERMINED to do so and is the sole heir but it isn’t going to go easy.
In a somewhat related vein it looks like the U$ is going to find itself in even more financial difficulty with the growth of the SWFs… the Sovereign Wealth Funds that are lfinancial vehicles piloted by governments but investing privately.
This is Pat Buchanan, a notable not-liberal
” The United Arab Emirates has $500 billion in SWFs; Norway $400 billion; Singapore and Saudi Arabia $200 billion; and China nearly $200 billion. Total SWF funds worldwide is $2.5 trillion, writes ex-Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, a figure that is expected to double to $5 trillion by 2010, and then double again to $12 trillion by 2015.”
Releasing the trillions of $ of US paper that is outstanding (but sequestered) at 5% interest to pursue higher gains in various markets might just cause difficulties. Key safety here is that it is a SOVEREIGN fund… they won’t barring political considerations destabilize the $ intentionally, but political considerations are NOT out of the question.
It is related to my perception that ALL big piles of money seem to take on a life of their own. They make me uncomfortable by their existence. Amoral monsters that inhabit the bourse. Unlike the movies, there is no background music to warn you that something bad is creeping up on you.
Just in case you weren’t worried enough.
ciao
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Liberty
We’re arguing at cross purposes. You’re talking about how the world SHOULD be and I’m talking about how the world IS.
“Well the Greens support that more than any party. Most resources are created or discovered, not allocated -”
Really? Um how about LAND (thats a biggie), oil, gas, minerals (silver, gold, uranium, etc), electromagnetic spectrum, agriculture, fishing ad infinitum. Private property is NOT a right. Its a PRIVILEGE, albeit a very beneficial privilige. As a representative of society the government grants an individual title in exchange for money to compensate the rest of society for forgoing the exclusive use of that land.
…”and governments tends to make things worse as you seem to imply!”
Thats why we campaign for a more representative, democratic, and accountable government.
“Why pay them then given that almost all business strive for efficiency and eliminating waste? Maybe they are doing things you don’t understand like managing debt, attracting investors, in others words looking after the interests of the people who own the business the people YOU list are working for. You think Microsoft would be a roaring success if it was run entirely by software developers?”
Thats not even related to my argument. A company doesn’t have to be financially successful to be productive, efficient, or to make innovative products that people like. I wouldn’t say Microsoft or Telecom are particularly efficient or provide goods and services that their customers are happy with. Would you? Never heard of Linux and the open source software movement? Bigger companies tend to be even less efficient or productive than smaller enterprises as there less need.
“So you’re opposing corporatist capitalism with big government, not laissez-faire capitalism without state subsidies or protectionism or the destruction of property rights (land and intellectual).”
“Well those are ABUSES of laws, go on enforce them then. I’m against corporate welfare more than the Greens (who love subsidising a helluva lot) and I’m against eminent domain which is an outrageous infringement on private property rights. None of that has anything to do with capitalism, but is a corruption of it.”
I know. Even Bill Clinton who is supposed to be the American version of a leftie, wouldn’t or couldn’t do it. He even tried to INCREASE the amount of Corporate Welfare.
“The Clinton administration has shown itself hostile to even the modest corporate welfare cutbacks proposed by Congress. For the 35 corporate welfare programs examined in this study, the administration’s 1996 budget actually requested a slight increase in spending.”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1113
The Greens support TARGETED subsidies that will benefit ordinary New Zealanders and the environment not giving extra wealth to the already wealthy.
“So you’re opposing corporatist capitalism with big government, not laissez-faire capitalism without state subsidies or protectionism or the destruction of property rights (land and intellectual).”
What other option is there Scott? We’re already overwhelmed by enterprises supported by governments who haven’t implemented reforms anywhere near to the extent to which we’ve gone. We’d be far worse off if we went even further.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)