The source of those numbers is the NHTSA, and Keith Hennessey explained them in detail here:

http://keithhennessey.com/2009...

Very similar to Barack Obama's desire to legislate coal power out of existence. Recall that he said,

"If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them... Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

Thanks for clarifying what you meant when you said "redistribute equally among everyone."

Essentially, you're arguing for a bigger welfare state.

Do I want to improve the standard of living of people on welfare? Absolutely, as funds become available. However,

-- Funds are not available at this time. National Debt is $20 trillion, and Unfunded Liabilities are $162 trillion.

-- If you give more than just lip service to the concept of "freedom," you recognize that voluntary redistribution of wealth (a.k.a. charity) is a far better way to elevate the standard of living of low-income persons, than coerced redistribution of wealth.

Starship looks like it's going to reduce the cost of putting things in orbit by several orders of magnitude.

datavirtue thinks that's stupid.

Interesting take.

In order to refill a Starship with methane in a timely manner, the Sabatier process likely requires more energy than can be obtained from unfolding solar panels on Mars.

So will Starships carry nuclear reactors to the surface of Mars?

Thank you for recognizing that to the extent there are undue increases in the money supply, there is inflation.

Far too many people buy into the nonsense that governments can fund vast new entitlement programs just by creating money (which may or may not be a misstatement of Modern Monetary Theory.

What makes my thought experiment valid, though, is that the "magic button" is not a money-printing press on steroids; it's just an instantaneous stand-in for years of robust economic growth. Thus, if the thought experiment can postulate a three-hundred-fold increase in income, it can just as easily postulate that the increased income consists of uninflated dollars.

We're on the right track when it comes to reducing absolute poverty. Check out the graph on this page:

          https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/re...

which shows the number dropping from 741 million to ~645 million in only four years; all thanks to the economic growth of free markets.

Also note that the steady progress has been temporarily reversed by the pandemic's negative effect on the economic growth of free markets.

Given enough years of economic growth, absolute poverty will be eliminated. But we'll never reach that noble goal if the focus is on raging against the non-problem of relative poverty. I live in relative poverty compared to Jeff Bezos. But that's not a problem, because I live comfortably.

The goal should be to elevate everyone who doesn't live comfortably -- i.e., to eliminate absolute poverty -- not to bring down Bezos. His wealth was earned one Amazon transaction at a time. Amazon's customers entered into those transactions voluntarily, because they correctly perceived a benefit to themselves; in the aggregate, they've benefitted immensely from those transactions. To prevent the rise of Bezos-like figures is to eliminate the very economic growth that lifts people out of absolute poverty in a sustainable manner. It's not a zero-sum game.

No, redistributing equally among everyone would guarantee death for everyone.

Who in his right mind would seek an education, or do a lick of work, if those who work and those who don't work were compensated equally?

With no one doing work, no new goods or services would be produced, and soon we'd all starve.

You can invalidate any thought experiment âby changing its terms or adding additional postulates. (Including the ones Einstein used. His thought experiments involved impossible things, such as flying through space at the speed of light; nonetheless they let him to revolutionary discoveries.)

The impossible thing in my thought experiment is a magic button that greatly increases everyone's income by a specific formula. What kind of magic button would multiply incomes, only to have them nullified by higher prices? That's not magic at all; that's just hyperinflation, for which there are a number of real-world examples.

As inflation effects were not a postulate of the thought experiment, the increased income consists of uninflated dollars.

You should read Inflation targeting > Choosing a positive, zero, or negative inflation target

If you accept the premise of a Magic Button that can multiply everyone's income three-hundred-fold, you can also accept the premise that it provides incomes that won't be eroded by inflation.

But let's talk about something more realistic.

The point you're missing is that the set of resources isn't finite.

Thousands of years ago, there was a tiny population of humans, and the most sophisticated dwelling was a mud hut.

Now we're approaching 8 billion humans, and only a tiny fraction of them live in mud huts. The set of resources had to grow by many orders of magnitude for that change to take place. Most of the growth took place relatively recently, in historic terms. The economic growth of free markets made it possible.

And the economic growth of free markets has steadily driven poverty lower -- unfortunately, not as fast as a magic button would -- but substantial progress has been made nonetheless. If you look at the graph on this page,

        https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/re...

the number of people living in extreme poverty went from 741 million to ~645 million in only four years.

Note that the steady progress has been temporarily reversed by the pandemic's negative effect on the economic growth of free markets.

If the world's economies strove for really robust economic growth, the amount of voluntary wealth transfer (a.k.a. charity) performed by high-income individuals would skyrocket, and the 645 million figure would be driven toward zero much more rapidly.

And to those who aren't just paying lip service to the concept of "freedom," voluntary wealth transfer beats coerced wealth transfer any day. The spirit of true charity is found nowhere in the latter.

Disabled people, or people with no marketable skills, do indeed depend on wealth transfers for their survival.

And which of the following scenarios is preferable to accomplish those wealth transfers?

A) Governments coercively take money from taxpayers, waste a large fraction of it supporting their own massive bureaucracies, and then trickle the remaining fraction out to those in need.

B) A large number of philanthropy-minded, high-income individuals make voluntary wealth transfers to those in need through efficient private charities.

To those who aren't just paying lip service to the concept of "freedom," voluntary wealth transfer beats coerced wealth transfer any day. The spirit of true charity is found nowhere in the latter.

I'm striving to become part of the demonized "one percent" -- not because I'm fond of luxury goods, but because I want to massively expand my philanthropic activities. Would love to see the elimination of absolute poverty in my lifetime. But efforts to eliminate relative poverty (a.k.a. income inequality) are certainly the enemy of that noble goal -- not to mention doomed.

If you look at the graph on this page,

        https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/re...

the number of people living in extreme poverty went from 741 million to ~645 million in only four years. All thanks to the economic growth of free markets.

Note that the steady progress has been temporarily reversed by the pandemic's negative effect on the economic growth of free markets.

If the world's economies strove for really robust economic growth, the amount of voluntary wealth transfer (a.k.a. charity) performed by high-income individuals would skyrocket, and the 645 million figure would be driven toward zero much more rapidly.

When everyone's income is miserably low, you have achieved income equality.

And that would be far worse than a world of "inequality," where only a few people have miserably low incomes, and there are lots of billionaires.

So you accept the premise of a magic button that can multiply everyone's income three-hundred-fold, but not of a magic button that can provide everyone with uninflated dollars? That's silly.

Actually there is something that tends to raise the standard of living of everyone on earth (faster than inflation lowers everyone's standard of living). It's called the economic growth of free markets. Unfortunately, it doesn't act instantaneously, like the "magic button." But it does act. If you look at the graph on this page:

https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/re...

you'll see steady, substantial progress in reducing the number of people living in extreme poverty (dropping from 741 million to 645 million).

Note that the steady progress has been temporarily reversed by the pandemic's negative effect on the economic growth of free markets.

If the world's economies strived for really robust economic growth, the amount of voluntary wealth transfer (a.k.a. charity) performed by high-income individuals would skyrocket, and the 645 million figure would be driven down close to zero much more rapidly.

And if you like the concept of "freedom," voluntary wealth transfer is better than coercive wealth transfer any day. The true spirit of charity is found nowhere in the latter.

Yes, I explicitly stated that twice, in hopes that readers would understand that is my argument.

The magic button is a key part of this thought experiment, as it forces people to actively think about their position on this issue. If you truly buy into the nonsense that income inequality is a problem, you'll refrain from pressing the button, and condemn hundreds of millions of people to continue living in absolute poverty.

Well no, not a scam. If you look at the graph on this page,

https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/re...

you see steady progress -- driven by the economic growth of free markets -- in reducing the number of people living in extreme poverty (dropping from 741 million to 645 million). The progress is not as rapid as anyone would like (and certainly not like an instantaneous magic button), but it exists, and is not a scam, and is substantial.

Note that the steady progress has been temporarily reversed by the pandemic's negative effect on the economic growth of free markets.

If the world's economies strived for really robust economic growth, the amount of voluntary wealth transfer (a.k.a. charity) performed by high-income people would skyrocket, and the 645 million figure would be driven down close to zero much more rapidly.

Only if you choose to get bent about it.

I am doing better than my parents and grandparents did, economically. I am grateful for that, and I don't care that Jeff Bezos' income is six orders of magnitude greater than mine, and I won't care if his income grows to be 60 orders of magnitude greater than mine. More power to him.

If it does grow to be 60 orders of magnitude greater than mine, yay! He and others like him will have ended absolute poverty through their voluntary philanthropy.

No, massive inflation is not one of the postulates of the thought experiment. An annual income of 230,000 uninflated dollars is what is postulated by the thought experiment.

You can invalidate any thought experiment by arbitrarily changing the terms like that. Thank you for not playing.