[renewiltord]

This is just basic marketing. You sell to the guy who can buy.

The Tesla company was started in 2003 to productionize the AC tzero. In 2005, the Roadster was conceived as the product it became and Tesla and Lotus tied up.

The Secret Master Plan arrived in 2006. So yeah, that's just how it goes. Because there is an army of people who lament things targeted at rich people, but that army does not participate in progress, either in money or in sweat.

The intelligent futurist always ignores them because they contribute nothing.

[runarberg]

That makes the current state of our humanity kind of sad, doesn’t it.

It is also not true. There are numerous innovations targeted for the betterment of us all. The three-point seat-belt is a quick one that comes to mind. The field of medicine has tax funded research innovating at a remarkable frequency, where the target beneficiaries is all humans who need it. Expensive infrastructures like roads, train networks, electric grids, and trash disposal systems are build around the world for everyone who needs, not just the once who can afford it.

But we do lament things that are target at rich people, because these rich people are literally destroying the world with their over-consumption. They certainly don’t deserve more nice things that the rest of the world is paying for.

[renewiltord]

It's always been the case. We linked the world via trade in search of making a rich man's food taste better. I don't think it's sad. I think it's wonderful. The rich 'subsidize' progress for everyone.

All of the things you mention (except the 3-point seatbelt, perhaps) have a story just like this one with some guy saying things just like this guy and a veritable shower of lament with no effort behind it.

[runarberg]

> The rich 'subsidize' progress for everyone

This sounds like an HN version of trickle down theory which I thought had been thoroughly debunked by economists.

It’s funny but, I’ve always been under the impression that the opposite were true in standard economics, the poor—with their labour—are the once who subsidize the rich. I find it hard to believe that the economics of progress are any different. Let me draw up some napkin economics:

Scenario A: The poor pay disproportionaly higher taxes then the rich. Taxes pay for infrastructure, education, etc. The rich uses the infrastructure and the higher skilled workforce to work on a thing. The rich get richer on that thing. The rich give them self a higher percentage of the profit then the workers or the state. The rich just got richer because of subsidy from the poor.

Scenario B: The poor pay disproportionaly higher taxes then the rich. Taxes pay for infrastructure, education, etc. A team of PhD students (the poor) and their assistance (the poor) spend thousands of work-hours to figure out how a thing can be improved. A company uses their findings free of charge to deliver a better product. The company does not give the students and their assistance a fair share of the profits. The company pays their shareholders (the rich) the majority of the profits. The rich just got richer because of subsidy from the poor.

[bhupy]

“Trickle down theory” has not been “debunked” by economists because it’s not an actual economic theory. It’s a pejorative used to criticize tax cuts.

Also the fact that technological progress/experiment typically (but not always) targets the top end of the market and works its way down is not controversial.

This phenomenon is also not what most people mean by “trickle down economics” as it relates to the pejorative against tax cuts which, again, isn’t a real theory peddled by credible economists.

[dzhiurgis]

Sir, this is not reddit.

[rkangel]

I'm not sure about the medicine example. There are many cases of diseases being ignored because despite being widespread there isn't much money in treating them.