Lamborghini’s New Car: The Poor Will Have It

by

What if I told you that the next generation Lamborghini, the 2,220lb Sesto Elemento, would soon be in the poor’s hands?

Capitalism is a miracle worker. It quite literally pulls technology from the future and delivers it at rock-bottom prices to the masses today. It has worked for everything we enjoy today, and it will work for the Sesto Elemento as well.

While we may not have Elementos in our driveway (it’s not a production car, so there are probably only one or two of them in the world), the technology that Lamborghini has put into the car will likely show up in cars that even the lower class can afford. What is prohibitively expensive today will be commonplace tomorrow.

How does this happen?

When new technology rolls around, it is very expensive to implement.

For starters, ideas in people’s heads do not fall out and turn into technology. It takes a lot of work and a lot of money to turn these ideas into the first generation technology. Usually, these processes are prohibitively expensive and are only successful some of the time.

For the next generation, only a few people in the world have the technical know-how to even get the technology to work and the economy has not restructured itself to facilitate the mass-production of the technology. If you want to get your hands on some of it, you’re going to have to pay top-dollar. This is where the Sesto Elemento is at today.

If there aren’t any buyers for the technology, also known as wealthy people who have billions of dollars at their fingertips to burn on extravagant technology, the technology would likely die on the vine. Without a market to sell the manufactured goods, no one would dare manufacture it.

However, as the super-rich buy up the technology, the people who sold it earn a little profit. They use this profit, combined with their experience, to tweak the technology to make it better and cheaper. Before you know it, soon even the non-super rich rich can afford it. This bigger market means more people can get their hands on the technology, but more importantly, the manufacturer is able to make even more in profits.

Would you rather sell yachts to billionaires or socks to Chinese? If you want to be rich yourself, I’d sell socks if I were you. Thus, holders and developers of the technology are constantly looking for ways to make their product cheaper yet still profitable so it can reach larger and larger markets.

This force that drives the cost of goods down while increasing their quality is something that only exists in capitalist systems. There is no net benefit to politicians and bureaucrats to see the businesses they manage deliver superior products at a lower price. It doesn’t earn them any rewards, at least not rewards similar to what the technology capitalist will earn.

As the price lowers and the technology improves, the economy begins reorganizing to facilitate the production, distribution, sales and marketing, and after-marketing for the technology. This reorganization happens as countless millions of people choose to do something different than they did before, simply because of their new expectations and the lure of the all-powerful dollar.

Eventually, useful technology reaches a price so low that everyone can get their hands on it if they simply ask for it. Take cell phones for instance. I remember when I was a kid that only people like John Kerry could even contemplate owning such a thing. As I grew up, I saw the price decrease while the technology improved. Today, for a cheaper price than the original cellphones, I can buy a handheld computer with computing resources that put computers that cost four times as much ten years ago to shame.

Folks, I know it’s bad to covet, but if you want a taste of what life will be like in a few years, you simply have to see what technologies are available to the super-rich today. And if we want to see that technology get to the common man sooner, we have to release businesses from the bondage of high taxes, excessive government spending, and punitive regulations.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Lamborghini’s New Car: The Poor Will Have It”

  1. demo kid Says:

    And? This isn’t news to anyone. The issue is whether the relative condition of the rich will improve dramatically while the middle-class and the poor will be left behind. Concentrations of wealth do little to encourage actual democracy.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      What injury, precisely, does your it do you if your neighbor is worth a trillion times what you are worth?

      It cannot be argued that having any difference between the rich and the poor is harm at all, as long as the poor have just as many freedoms as the rich.

  2. demo kid Says:

    What injury, precisely, does your it do you if your neighbor is worth a trillion times what you are worth?

    If my neighbor is a trillionnaire and I’m poor, there is an obvious imbalance of power there, and an imbalance in the rights I can exercise. If this neighbor decides to pay money to a team of lawyers to make my life hell, he can certainly do that. If he decides to buy up all of the land around my house and build an amusement park, he can get away with it, especially if I cannot afford to make a case for nuisance in court. Heck, even if he donates a lot of money to charity, he still holds power — if he has a particular stance on an issue, his voice will be heard louder than anyone else’s.

    This isn’t a matter that he is able to do more — of course he will be able to buy a bigger house and take more vacations! — it is a matter of having the ability to exercise more rights in civil society.

    Is this a good thing? To some extent, a meritocracy is great. I don’t disagree with allowing those that are successful the ability to enjoy their success. (Never have, despite your attempts to lie about my position.) Where it becomes an issue is when the rights of others are trampled by this.

    Your fantasy libertarian utopia clearly ignores this, and if your fantasy world were to become a reality, it would be layered with injustice. The liberty of the strong would quickly overwhelm the rights of the weak.

    It cannot be argued that having any difference between the rich and the poor is harm at all, as long as the poor have just as many freedoms as the rich.

    The poor do not have the income to buy airtime on major television stations, hire lawyers to file lawsuits, contribute money to PACs, buy $1,000 tickets for political fundraisers, afford the time or expenses to travel to Washington to petition Congress, or self-finance a run for political office. The issues of the poor in government are routinely shoved aside to create tax breaks for the rich, presumably to create jobs and income… despite a growing gulf between the upper and lower classes.

    It reminds me, in fact, of the old Soviet Union. Under communism, everyone was free to vote, and voter participation was actually quite high! Never mind, of course, that the only candidates were those from the Communist Party. The right to vote existed, but it was suppressed by the conditions in which that right existed.

    So, to assume that the pretense of rights will actually result in the ability to exercise those rights equally… it’s either naive or just plain ignorant.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      I do not understand this concept of “more” or “less” rights. Rights are a binary thing: either you have them or you don’t. Is the rich man’s voice louder than mine? Is he able to form sentences and paragraphs and argue political ideas better than I? So what if he is? Does he do so at the expense of my own ability to form political statements?

      I am sure you are familiar with Harrison Bergeron. If you confuse rights for abilities, then I can understand why you’d think a rich man has more rights than a poor man. But what about the lame, the sick, the dumb, the deaf, the invalid? Do they have less rights than the able-bodied? Should we lock up everyone who has the freedom to move around without a wheelchair and silence all those who can speak so that they do not have more rights than anyone else?

      I’ve crushed your argument that any one person can have any more rights than another.

      Now, I noticed you left out one important fact. (The left always does.)

      How do the rich get rich?

      By making money.

      How do you make money?

      There is only one way to become truly rich: by making other people even more money. Usually, it involves making a whole lot of people a little bit of money, and asking, as a matter of free and open trade, for some in return. That’s how Bill Gates made his wealth. People willingly bought his software because it was much more valuable than Bill’s asking price.

      In a way, Bill Gates was doing us a public service. He gave us all something we wanted.

      Doesn’t justice demand that he be compensated for his public charity? Shouldn’t we compensate him for his service by giving him a very nice home, very nice cars, and airtime to voice his concerns?

      Or are you an ungrateful wretch who never says “thank you” for the things people do for you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: