[dventimi]

> the person above said "Elon got rich by creating goods and services for other people,"

That's not all they said. They also said, "such as EV cars, or low-cost space launches. It's a wash. Oh wait, actually it isn't because every trade of goods and services is advantageous to both parties by definition."

What's the significance of "low-cost" for space launches? What do they mean by, "It's a wash." What do they mean by, "every trade of goods an services is advantageous to both parties."? Do they mean that low-cost space launches benefit all or most Americans, because we all benefit from satellites for weather and GPS? Maybe. Do they mean that with both space launches and EV cars, the benefits of Elon's activities to all or most Americans wash out any drawbacks of him being rich? Maybe. Do they mean that this balancing of benefits and drawbacks always occurs because it's built into free-market capitalism? Maybe. Those interpretations aren't ruled out so far. You can't be certain they aren't what they intended any more than I can be certain that they are. It certainly would be in keeping with a common line of argument, which is that wealthy people return as much or more to any economy as they extract from it. I don't know that this is this person's line of argument, but it could be, and if it is then it's not a non-sequitur to attack that line of argument by throwing into doubt the universality of the benefits of Elon's products.

> If you'll then say something about how "he should make things more affordable for people,"

Let me stop you right there. I practically never hand out recommendations for what people "should" do.

[satvikpendem]

You are reading universality where that was not implied whatsoever. "Both parties" simply means the buyer and seller (it is indeed a restatement of the principle of comparative advantage if you look in any economics textbook, both the buyer and seller in a market benefit from the transaction because both produce provide what the other cannot, and facilitate it through money as the medium of exchange), where are you getting the idea that that relates to the American people at large? In the case of Teslas, people who give money to the company get a car back and the company gets to continue to do RND and create more cars. In the case of SpaceX, it's the governments or private corporations that want to send things to space. That's it, nothing was said as to whether these transactions benefit the average American, that is why I said your comment is a non sequitur.

[dventimi]

> You are reading universality where that was not implied whatsoever

I'm not persuaded you're in a position to know what zozbot234 implied.

> where are you getting the idea that that relates to the American people at large

From my experience talking to other people on related topics.

> nothing was said as to whether these transactions benefit the average American

Something was said as to whether the class of people to which one of the parties to these transactions (Elon Musk, that is) belongs benefits the average American. It was said by me near the root of this sub-thread, in the comment to which zozbot234 replied.

> that is why I said your comment is a non sequitur.

If you're handing out non-sequitur demerits, hand one to zozbot234 then, if that person's comment and everything after it doesn't relate to the American people at large, as you seem to imply. Or, hand one to yourself. Take your pick.

[satvikpendem]

> Something was said as to whether the class of people to which one of the parties to these transactions (Elon Musk, that is) belongs benefits the average American. It was said by me near the root of this sub-thread, in the comment to which zozbot234 replied

> hand one to zozbot234 then

No, they were directly responding to your claim that

> Elon owning 10 megayachts means 10 megayachts (as much as $5 billion) worth of productive capacity being redirected away from other uses that benefit many people, to a use that is frivolous insofar as it largely benefits just one person.

They are saying that there is no relationship to wealth by billionaires and helping "the average American," only that they can get rich by creating value, whether it be for one person or many, and that it is not redirection but creation of wealth that benefits both parties. Their statement does not have anything to do with "the average American" because they were directly refuting that there may (or may not be) "uses that benefit many people," yet you misunderstood to thinking that they were still somehow talking about the "many people" part. This is quite clear in their comment but I still don't think you quite understood the thread of logic of the thread, particularly how their refutation redirected the topic of conversation, to which I replied.

> I'm not persuaded you're in a position to know what zozbot234 implied.

If you do not know the basics of the economics of comparative advantage, particularly in terms of how people talk about "both parties" in a transaction, then I can see why you are not persuaded.

> From my experience talking to other people on related topics.

Sure, but that is not this thread however.

Again, sounds like you have an axe to grind against billionaires which is biasing your argumentation.

[dventimi]

>> hand one to zozbot234 then

> No

Then hand one to yourself.

> They are saying that there is no relationship to wealth by billionaires and helping "the average American," only that they can get rich by creating value, whether it be for one person or many,

I know they're saying that (or more accurately, that's what I infer...neither of us knows for certain what zozbot234 is saying). And, I'm saying they're wrong.

> and that it is not redirection but creation of wealth that benefits both parties.

Well, now you're both wrong because it is a redirection of productive capacity (which is the term I used in the parent comment) and that has drawbacks for "many people." That a few megayachts might have benefits for a few people doesn't change that.

> yet you misunderstood to thinking that they were still somehow talking about the "many people" part

Neither of use knows what they were thinking, so you're in no position to say whether there was or wasn't a misunderstanding.

> I still don't think you quite understood the thread of logic of the thread, particularly how their refutation redirected the topic of conversation

If they redirected the topic of the conversation, then I'm going to score that as a non-sequitur once again.

> If you do not know the basics of the economics of comparative advantage

Give yourself yet another non-sequitur demerit. Why? Because the "basics of the economics of comparative advantage" can't tell you anything about what was in zozbot234's head. Perhaps they don't understand those basics. How do you know they do? Did you ask them?

> Sure, but that is not this thread however.

I'm starting to doubt you even understand the role that experience plays.

> sounds like you have an axe to grind against billionaires which is biasing your argumentation.

Mea culpa. I do have an axe to grind against billionaires. Don't you? I also have an axe to grind against autocrats and despots. Don't you? Or would you score any critique of [insert geopolitical villain here] as "biased"?

[satvikpendem]

Okay, if you want to argue about what you thought was being said (ironic) instead of what words were put on the page, then I cannot help you any further. Goodbye.

[dventimi]

I never wanted to argue with you at all. You replied to me, not the other way around. Also, it would be impossible for you to "help [me] any further" because, despite your bid for self-flattery, you haven't "helped" me at all. If you don't want to discuss the matter any longer, suit yourself. No one held a gun to your head.