4 ms·

"There would be as many as the market demands" I disagree. There are many, many industries wherein barriers to entry are far too significant for private capit

"There would be as many as the market demands" I disagree. There are many, many industries wherein barriers to entry are far too significant for private capital to take the risks - moreover - especially in areas of innovation, some things would not exist. The internet itself would not have existed without having first been developed by the military, and then by academia. Were it not to have been built - what 'startup' in 1965 was going to spend 30 years developing protocols, selling 'it' (whatever 'it' was in terms of a product) to universities etc. Think GPS. Who's going to invent this tech out of nothing, and pay for a satellite program (back in the day when it was obscenely expensive to put stuff in space) for a market that does not exist? What's the business plan in 1965 for a 'GPS startup'? Aircraft is much the same way. Europeans are not stupid - they have smart enough capital and R&D, but the only way Airbus got off the ground was by massive political intervention. Same for Nuclear Energy and some other forms of energy development. And all of this aside from the fact that so much advancement came out of WW2 (and other wars) - which is R&D that the industry receives as a free, externalized benefit.

nickpp 9y ago
Totally, like an Electric Car! What private company would ever be able to invest in R&D and especially in the necessary charging infrastructure? Only a Government can have the resources and vision to create an electric car. Without Governments there would be 0 electric cars on the road.
- vkou 9y ago
  Tesla was kept afloat by EV tax credits and government loans. I'm afraid you'll have to find John Galt in another castle.
  - nickpp 9y ago
    I believe it is impossible today to have a company function without interacting with (and taking advantage of) the government. It is a natural effect of the enormous power we confer to our governments through the taxes and the rule-making role we give them. The effects are easily judged by comparing the customer satisfaction in a heavily regulated market like infrastructure, health-care or planes and a more competitive, privatized market like consumer electronics or entertainment.
- rtpg 9y ago
  How much do you think it costs to run a program like the 787? Shinkansen? Nuclear Reactors? Electric cars are much less capital-intensive than building multi-hundred seat planes. There's obviously a spectrum of difficulty here, but we can make the capital requirements easier to have products that otherwise might take 20 years to exist, rather than 2. Tesla only exists thanks to the grace of a billionaire who didn't want to spend his money on a private island in Hawaii.
  - nickpp 9y ago
    Those programs cost that much exactly because governments are involved. The corruption and sheer inefficiency of a government balloons costs orders of magnitude. There are countless examples where human ingenuity and private entrepreneurship has found frugal solutions to complex problems but none where governments are involved. I do agree that with huge waste you can do in 2 years what would take 20, but I am not sure the cost is always worth it. Especially because that cost on the long term is a corrupt market on the long term, unable to function without further government interventions.
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      "There are countless examples where human ingenuity and private entrepreneurship has found frugal solutions to complex problems but none where governments are involved." Nobody is denying this. Nobody is saying that 'the government is the only source of innovation or should be managing the economy'. But there are many industries that would not exist without strategic involvement by state actors. Again - there are no 'big aircraft makers' in the entire world that are not backed by governments.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  "What private company would ever be able to invest in R&D and especially in the necessary charging infrastructure?" Tesla would probably not exist without government subsidies. Also - electric cars are just a pretty small/feasible evolution from regular ones, moreover, the barrier to entry is not outlandish. There's a 'known market' and we know how to build them. Even the sales cycle for large aircraft depends on state actors.
  - nickpp 9y ago
    Yes. Because a private company taking advantage of corrupt actors in a broken market means that said company could not exist at all in a functioning free market. Because it would be too expensive. We have no examples where private companies worked in parallel to build huge, expensive markets from the ground up. Like say the CAR market itself. Or the cell phone. Or the smartphone... No, a Wise Government must come in and say "let there be market"...
pjungwir 9y ago
Even integrated circuits, according to The Chip by T.R. Reid. He writes that for several years they were too expensive to compete with wiring together discrete components, but suddenly the space race and arms race demanded small, light electronics, so government purchasing funded the early years of IC development. I don't know if he's right, but it sounds convincing.
VMG 9y ago
Unfortunately we just cannot explore the counterfactual and just have to do post hoc ergo procter hoc. No matter how big the private sector investment is, there will be some Government investment as well. That is enough to question whether the private sector can even come up with shoes on it's own.

nickpp 9y ago

Totally, like an Electric Car! What private company would ever be able to invest in R&D and especially in the necessary charging infrastructure? Only a Government can have the resources and vision to create an electric car. Without Governments there would be 0 electric cars on the road.

vkou 9y ago
Tesla was kept afloat by EV tax credits and government loans. I'm afraid you'll have to find John Galt in another castle.
- nickpp 9y ago
  I believe it is impossible today to have a company function without interacting with (and taking advantage of) the government. It is a natural effect of the enormous power we confer to our governments through the taxes and the rule-making role we give them. The effects are easily judged by comparing the customer satisfaction in a heavily regulated market like infrastructure, health-care or planes and a more competitive, privatized market like consumer electronics or entertainment.
rtpg 9y ago
How much do you think it costs to run a program like the 787? Shinkansen? Nuclear Reactors? Electric cars are much less capital-intensive than building multi-hundred seat planes. There's obviously a spectrum of difficulty here, but we can make the capital requirements easier to have products that otherwise might take 20 years to exist, rather than 2. Tesla only exists thanks to the grace of a billionaire who didn't want to spend his money on a private island in Hawaii.
- nickpp 9y ago
  Those programs cost that much exactly because governments are involved. The corruption and sheer inefficiency of a government balloons costs orders of magnitude. There are countless examples where human ingenuity and private entrepreneurship has found frugal solutions to complex problems but none where governments are involved. I do agree that with huge waste you can do in 2 years what would take 20, but I am not sure the cost is always worth it. Especially because that cost on the long term is a corrupt market on the long term, unable to function without further government interventions.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    "There are countless examples where human ingenuity and private entrepreneurship has found frugal solutions to complex problems but none where governments are involved." Nobody is denying this. Nobody is saying that 'the government is the only source of innovation or should be managing the economy'. But there are many industries that would not exist without strategic involvement by state actors. Again - there are no 'big aircraft makers' in the entire world that are not backed by governments.
alexasmyths 9y ago
"What private company would ever be able to invest in R&D and especially in the necessary charging infrastructure?" Tesla would probably not exist without government subsidies. Also - electric cars are just a pretty small/feasible evolution from regular ones, moreover, the barrier to entry is not outlandish. There's a 'known market' and we know how to build them. Even the sales cycle for large aircraft depends on state actors.
- nickpp 9y ago
  Yes. Because a private company taking advantage of corrupt actors in a broken market means that said company could not exist at all in a functioning free market. Because it would be too expensive. We have no examples where private companies worked in parallel to build huge, expensive markets from the ground up. Like say the CAR market itself. Or the cell phone. Or the smartphone... No, a Wise Government must come in and say "let there be market"...

pjungwir 9y ago

Even integrated circuits, according to The Chip by T.R. Reid. He writes that for several years they were too expensive to compete with wiring together discrete components, but suddenly the space race and arms race demanded small, light electronics, so government purchasing funded the early years of IC development. I don't know if he's right, but it sounds convincing.

VMG 9y ago

Unfortunately we just cannot explore the counterfactual and just have to do post hoc ergo procter hoc. No matter how big the private sector investment is, there will be some Government investment as well. That is enough to question whether the private sector can even come up with shoes on it's own.