Eccentric Billionaire Unleashes His Inner Trump

[luiz]

I think a full assessment would show that while SpaceX does some bad things it is still a good example of how a company can operate outside of the normal shareholder value paradigms that we have come to accept as not only normal but ideal in our society. I think the labor issues are a whole separate issue from that.

SpaceX would not exist without the injection of the massive cash Musk made as shareholder of other companies. Cash burning companies like Space X simply are not possible on their own; they need some sort of external financing. So SpaceX is very much a product of shareholders maximizing their return (and then using their colossal wealth in pet projects).

 

[Lexicus]

SpaceX would not exist without the injection of the massive cash Musk made as shareholder of other companies. Cash burning companies like Space X simply are not possible on their own; they need some sort of external financing. So SpaceX is very much a product of shareholders maximizing their return (and then using their colossal wealth in pet projects).

@hobbsyoyo, this is actually a good explanation of why I want the government to be spending more money: because letting capitalists control investment means Elon Musk gets to shoot a car into space but right-wingers claim we "can't afford" to provide people with health care.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, developing a reusable rocket system in a way that's never been attempted before will mean you'll have to spend billions on R&D and find investors willing to make a risky long term investment like that. When I first saw them trying to land rockets I thought it was stupid and unintuitive. A lot of investors must have thought the same.. Plus "super risky"

 

[Synobun]

Not sure advocating for a state-first model in infrastructure development works well when partisanship in the US entails having your first order of business being striking a match and burning down everything the past administration did, over and over and over again.

 

[Goodfella]

I mean, not really. Cars - or rather, vehicles designed to carry like 7 people maximum - are tremendously inefficient and stupid.

Well, as it turns out, whether or not you and every other "urbanist" thinks they're "stupid" (exclusionary, inefficient, etc) has no bearing on their future. Instead, it will be determined by personal preference. Cars are appealing due to their versatility, privacy, and the control they offer the driver. Electric AV technology will make cars even more appealing moving forward. The future will not rely exclusively on rail but rather AV networks, buses, and some rail networks, much like today. But that's not even the real issue with the article which is simply the dumbfounding accusation that any effort to improve cars is counterproductive.

It's something that could much more efficiently be done by a public utility. There's no need to have Elon Musk sucking blood out of it.

History has shown this is false. It took SpaceX to make the most advanced and cheapest rockets possible. The basic argument is a common one: it takes a profit motive to do things like design commonality between stages, institute a flat management structure, remove dependence on inefficient subcontractors, etc. A public utility would by nature not institute these changes. A public utility would by nature not have the drive or vision to reduce launch costs through reusability. That NASA's SLS will cost over a billion per launch and that the domestic competition costs >$200 million per launch shows that this is true. Additionally, would a public utility offer launch services to such a vast array of foreign companies and governments? I think not.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, as it turns out, whether or not you and every other "urbanist" thinks they're "stupid" (exclusionary, inefficient, etc) has no bearing on their future. Instead, it will be determined by personal preference. Cars are appealing due to their versatility, privacy, and the control they offer the driver. Electric AV technology will make cars even more appealing moving forward.

No, it will be determined by the fact that the planet and the rest of the planet's population of humans simply cannot afford to continue to subsidize the inefficient energy use of Westerners.

History has shown this is false. It took SpaceX to make the most advanced and cheapest rockets possible. The basic argument is a common one: it takes a profit motive to do things like design commonality between stages, institute a flat management structure, remove dependence on inefficient subcontractors, etc. A public utility would by nature not institute these changes. A public utility would by nature not have the drive or vision to reduce launch costs through reusability. That NASA's SLS will cost over a billion per launch and that the domestic competition costs >$200 million per launch shows that this is true. Additionally, would a public utility offer launch services to such a vast array of foreign companies and governments? I think not.

Dude, guess who sent the first guy into orbit? The Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Government money also took the US to the moon. The idea that you "need" a profit motive to do anything is just dogma which fools you into supporting a basic income guarantee for rich people.

 

[Goodfella]

Dude, guess who sent the first guy into orbit? The Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Government money also took the US to the moon. The idea that you "need" a profit motive to do anything is just dogma which fools you into supporting a basic income guarantee for rich people.

Obviously the government sent people to the moon. But obviously the system the government established ballooned into a massive and inefficient mess and it wasn't exactly cost effective in the 60s either. There's no scenario where the measures needed to reduce launch costs were going to be taken by the US or its favored contractors without private sector pressure. Similar situations unfolded in Russia and Europe. NASA tried to reduce launch costs with the shuttle program but instead made them more expensive. Their current launch vehicle efforts will be more expensive than ever. The government can establish the foundations for certain industries which private companies later enhance. That's how it worked with the internet, that's how it worked in this case. That's how it will continue to work as dozens of smallsat launch vehicle companies enter the market, as other heavy lift launchers like Blue Origin enter the market, and as commercial space activity (communications, Earth imaging, satellite internet, etc) continue to grow. Obviously all of this activity rests on the shoulders of earlier government efforts, but it's abundantly clear it could not go on like that indefinitely.

 

[Lexicus]

The weird thing is that the main reason the government systems keep ballooning in this way is that they do things by contracting, and the contractors have all those capitalists I was talking about who need to extract profits...

 

[Goodfella]

Contractors and subcontractors extracting profit at the expense of the project is only part of the problem. It's also unique to the NASA and military contractor models. These are not problems inherent to the entire economy (this model has little relevance to, say, the tech sector which the government also helped springboard). In the case of launch vehicles, SpaceX has shown that the way to improve here is to eliminate that structure, but not to eliminate the profit motive. (To preempt an objection, I don't know what should be done to reduce military waste since privatizing the military is obviously a step too far. But we're not arguing about that.) The contractor model arises from the fact that the government has limited expertise, ability, and resources and needs to go outside its agencies for certain manufacturing and engineering roles. This will never change unless you propose a radical restructuring of the scope and role of government. Assuming you do, we have fundamental disagreements that won't be overcome in this thread. But as you know, the Soviet model produced reliable and somewhat cost-effective launch vehicles that continue to be used today. However, these vehicles are lagging behind and lack innovation in recent years due to SpaceX's dominance. In fact, SpaceX has wiped Russia off the map when it comes to the commercial launch industry. That says a lot about which system is superior. The contractor model in the US and Europe has failed to keep up and the government-owned corporation model in Russia has also failed to keep up. Neither system showed interest in lowering launch costs or ushering in reusability until SpaceX arrived. That is why it's abundantly clear that those systems were not going to innovate without private sector pressure.

It's worth mentioning that satellites were initially an exclusively government enterprise that eventually turned into a private sector worth billions that provides communication, television, and imaging services. Again, with the rise of dozens of smallsat launch vehicle companies and other launchers like Blue Origin, the launch vehicle industry will likely become increasingly privatized as well. Eventually, there'll be no room for this "public utility" argument just as few people argue that social media or search engines should be public utilities.

 

[Kozmos]

No, it will be determined by the fact that the planet and the rest of the planet's population of humans simply cannot afford to continue to subsidize the inefficient energy use of Westerners.

Eh, why not? The top population cap will stabilize for the East and West in the near future and renewables are going full steam ahead with a couple of moonshot projects bouncing around too.

 

[luiz]

The weird thing is that the main reason the government systems keep ballooning in this way is that they do things by contracting, and the contractors have all those capitalists I was talking about who need to extract profits...

As opposed to those efficient Soviet industries?

 

[innonimatu]

Cars are appealing due to their versatility, privacy, and the control they offer the driver.

Privacy? Good luck with that now. Control? I'll take a little longer.

 

[Goodfella]

No, it will be determined by the fact that the planet and the rest of the planet's population of humans simply cannot afford to continue to subsidize the inefficient energy use of Westerners.

They're being made more efficient and aren't going anywhere. Also calling cars "western" is objectionable when China is now the largest car producer and car consumer. In per capita terms the West is higher, but the gap is narrowing.

 

[Hygro]

There is literally nothing that SpaceX has done that couldn't have been accomplished by public spending. And SpaceX itself isn't sucking blood, it's the capitalists like Musk who control it who are sucking blood.

But public spending didn’t happen, and Musk did the literal work of making a decades old dream viable.

 

[Goodfella]

Privacy? Good luck with that now. Control? I'll take a little longer.

I'm not sure what you're griping about but in most of the US consumers will continue to prefer cars. Energy issues will be dealt with and safety/congestion will be improved with AV. A future without cars is a fiction.

 

[innonimatu]

I'm griping about GPS-enabled, interned connected cars. To be mandated by law. What could possibly go wrong for privacy with that combination?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Eh, why not? The top population cap will stabilize for the East and West in the near future and renewables are going full steam ahead with a couple of moonshot projects bouncing around too.

I welcome your enthusiasm, but definitely can't reciprocate it

 

[Goodfella]

I'm griping about GPS-enabled, interned connected cars. To be mandated by law. What could possibly go wrong for privacy with that combination?

I meant privacy in the basic sense of not being in a crowded/noisy environment on the way to work. But if there are issues to work through, so what? I could play the dystopian game and claim that having your transportation limited to established routes, constantly being subjected to video surveillance, and being watched by everyone around you is obviously a worse situation for privacy. You're movement is additionally tracked through the use of your metro pass.

 

[Lexicus]

Eventually, there'll be no room for this "public utility" argument just as few people argue that social media or search engines should be public utilities.

Well, I'm one of them. You may be fine with allowing a tiny minority to control economic activity and extract rent from it, but I'll never be.

But public spending didn’t happen, and Musk did the literal work of making a decades old dream viable.

I sort of feel like there's no way he did it single-handedly, but maybe he's some sort of Homeric hero and I just don't get it?

 

[Hygro]

I sort of feel like there's no way he did it single-handedly, but maybe he's some sort of Homeric hero and I just don't get it?

No one else did the thing to make it happen.