4 ms·

Thank you for not falling into the "Conservatives hate science" trap. I can't speak for other people, but my personal issue with Musk's ventures are how much m

by Cuuugi 9y ago

Thank you for not falling into the "Conservatives hate science" trap. I can't speak for other people, but my personal issue with Musk's ventures are how much money he funnels from the government.

baldfat 9y ago
So they cry "Free Market PRIVATIZE" and now that we have a privatized space program we get this? LOL the hypocrisy is to much.
- Cuuugi 9y ago
  Privatization is not really privatization, when we (gov't) still pay for it.
  - mrguyorama 9y ago
    How not? The government has satellites it wants to put in orbit, and therefor must purchase the service like anyone else. Should they get it for free?
  - baldfat 9y ago
    HUH? Privatization is Government Work being run by a Non-Government Identity? The logic is confounding. So all those Military Industry is still paid for by the TAX PAYER?! Makes no logical sense.
    - Cuuugi 9y ago
      When the business takes public money, it is not truly private.
      - baldfat 9y ago
        WAIT? That is 100% contradictory! You are taking NASA's work and making the work competitive contracts, saving Government money. So instead of NASA getting 100% of the jobs they are then taking the best bidder, AKA cheapest price that can get the job done. So since the Government is paying it must be a Government Agency that runs it? Your talking double talk aka hypocrisy. Privatization is 100% taking work monopolized by the Government and putting them out to a private identity that can do it cheaper through the free market system.
        Cuuugi 9y ago
        It's not a "free" market system when it's using public funds. Simple as that. I'll keep repeating it, until you take a breath. I don't know why you are so angry or arrogant, but this is the first semi-lucid response you have given. Wrong, but semi lucid.
        Cuuugi 9y ago
        Subsidies are the antithesis of a "free" market, since the government is manipulating the market. This seems to be what we are arguing about here, and well there's no two sides to this debate. You are wrong.
Cthulhu_ 9y ago
But isn't that a good thing for the "small government" side of politics? You know, government having businesses doing things, instead of spending taxpayer's money on space exploration instead of defending the nation. okay so they still spend it on space stuff, but at least not directly. Would they complain if the government sent money to a privatized firefighting business instead of having firefighting be part of the government?
- Cuuugi 9y ago
  >>"Would they complain if the government sent money to a privatized firefighting business instead of having firefighting be part of the government?" I believe they would (probably not as bitterly) but the second half of this, is that there is a face to this business (Musk). Elon Musks's businesses all tend to get quite a fair bit of subsidies, which is why i think Ron Paul talks about "Cronie Capitalism"
xenophonf 9y ago
Compared to the amount of money we're shoveling into ULA?
pjc50 9y ago
Multiple choice question! For its launch capability, the US government should: - buy on the open market at the lowest available price. Currently this turns out to be Russia. - buy on the US market at the lowest available price. This may be SpaceX although other contenders are mentioned in the article - build its own rocket systems from scratch inside government agencies - just pay Boeing/Lockheed like they've always done - just give up on space (basically, if you think Musk funnels a lot of money from the US government, you should check out the rest of the aerospace industry...)
- wallace_f 9y ago
  There is a fair point to be made that we should be quite critical of how taxpayer dollars are spent. Musk himself even agrees that subsidies lead to cronyism. He has even said himself that subsidies to Tesla should end in favor of a carbon tax, which would be a more just,fair, competitive, and efficient policy tool. Musk and Ron Paul are both actually right about that. So given that government money spent towards space should be spent fairly and in support of a policy that maintains multiple competitors, these criticisms are a mix of 1) A warranted and necessary critical thought process, 2) likely influenced and supported by some good-old-boy network/industry support for ULA, and 3) opportunistic politics cashing in on a shallow opportunity to get back at a couple of Trump's adversaries like McCain and Musk.
Footkerchief 9y ago
I've seen this sentiment a lot recently. What's the difference between a) "funneling" and b) using subsidies and bidding for contracts (i.e. using those things the way they're meant to be used)? Do you consider other companies equally guilty of "funneling," e.g. Lockheed, which has about 10x the revenue and an equal if not greater dependence on the US government? http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/102715/how-lockheed-martin-makes-its-money-lmt.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/102715/how-lock...
thebluehawk 9y ago
Can you help me understand how Musk's ventures funnel more money from the government than his competitors? Tesla received less in federal loans than several other auto companies and paid them back early with full interest (a net gain for tax payers). SpaceX has lowered the cost of launch and again, saved money for the government/taxpayers. The EV tax credit is not specific to Tesla, it's available to purchasers of EV's or partial EV's from all manufacturers.
thinkcontext 9y ago
In the case of SpaceX he took very significant risk. After failing 3 launches they made the 4th, averting bankruptcy for both SpaceX, Tesla and Musk himself. SpaceX has saved the US $millions by unseating a fat incumbent in ULA. The savings could stretch into $billions soon and will grow larger if reusable rockets get certified for national security launches.
Nokinside 9y ago
He funnels less money than his competitors. That's how he wins the contracts. If you don't want private enterprise to get money from the government, you need to argue one of the following: * Government should develop it's own aerospace and military industry without private sector. * Government should stop space research and military should stop launching spy satellites.

by Cuuugi 9y ago

Thank you for not falling into the "Conservatives hate science" trap. I can't speak for other people, but my personal issue with Musk's ventures are how much money he funnels from the government.

baldfat 9y ago

So they cry "Free Market PRIVATIZE" and now that we have a privatized space program we get this? LOL the hypocrisy is to much.

Cuuugi 9y ago
Privatization is not really privatization, when we (gov't) still pay for it.
- mrguyorama 9y ago
  How not? The government has satellites it wants to put in orbit, and therefor must purchase the service like anyone else. Should they get it for free?
- baldfat 9y ago
  HUH? Privatization is Government Work being run by a Non-Government Identity? The logic is confounding. So all those Military Industry is still paid for by the TAX PAYER?! Makes no logical sense.
  - Cuuugi 9y ago
    When the business takes public money, it is not truly private.
    - baldfat 9y ago
      WAIT? That is 100% contradictory! You are taking NASA's work and making the work competitive contracts, saving Government money. So instead of NASA getting 100% of the jobs they are then taking the best bidder, AKA cheapest price that can get the job done. So since the Government is paying it must be a Government Agency that runs it? Your talking double talk aka hypocrisy. Privatization is 100% taking work monopolized by the Government and putting them out to a private identity that can do it cheaper through the free market system.
      - Cuuugi 9y ago
        It's not a "free" market system when it's using public funds. Simple as that. I'll keep repeating it, until you take a breath. I don't know why you are so angry or arrogant, but this is the first semi-lucid response you have given. Wrong, but semi lucid.
      - Cuuugi 9y ago
        Subsidies are the antithesis of a "free" market, since the government is manipulating the market. This seems to be what we are arguing about here, and well there's no two sides to this debate. You are wrong.

Cthulhu_ 9y ago

But isn't that a good thing for the "small government" side of politics? You know, government having businesses doing things, instead of spending taxpayer's money on space exploration instead of defending the nation. okay so they still spend it on space stuff, but at least not directly. Would they complain if the government sent money to a privatized firefighting business instead of having firefighting be part of the government?

Cuuugi 9y ago
>>"Would they complain if the government sent money to a privatized firefighting business instead of having firefighting be part of the government?" I believe they would (probably not as bitterly) but the second half of this, is that there is a face to this business (Musk). Elon Musks's businesses all tend to get quite a fair bit of subsidies, which is why i think Ron Paul talks about "Cronie Capitalism"

xenophonf 9y ago

Compared to the amount of money we're shoveling into ULA?

pjc50 9y ago

Multiple choice question! For its launch capability, the US government should: - buy on the open market at the lowest available price. Currently this turns out to be Russia. - buy on the US market at the lowest available price. This may be SpaceX although other contenders are mentioned in the article - build its own rocket systems from scratch inside government agencies - just pay Boeing/Lockheed like they've always done - just give up on space (basically, if you think Musk funnels a lot of money from the US government, you should check out the rest of the aerospace industry...)

wallace_f 9y ago
There is a fair point to be made that we should be quite critical of how taxpayer dollars are spent. Musk himself even agrees that subsidies lead to cronyism. He has even said himself that subsidies to Tesla should end in favor of a carbon tax, which would be a more just,fair, competitive, and efficient policy tool. Musk and Ron Paul are both actually right about that. So given that government money spent towards space should be spent fairly and in support of a policy that maintains multiple competitors, these criticisms are a mix of 1) A warranted and necessary critical thought process, 2) likely influenced and supported by some good-old-boy network/industry support for ULA, and 3) opportunistic politics cashing in on a shallow opportunity to get back at a couple of Trump's adversaries like McCain and Musk.

Footkerchief 9y ago

I've seen this sentiment a lot recently. What's the difference between a) "funneling" and b) using subsidies and bidding for contracts (i.e. using those things the way they're meant to be used)? Do you consider other companies equally guilty of "funneling," e.g. Lockheed, which has about 10x the revenue and an equal if not greater dependence on the US government? http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/102715/how-lockheed-martin-makes-its-money-lmt.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/102715/how-lock...

thebluehawk 9y ago

Can you help me understand how Musk's ventures funnel more money from the government than his competitors? Tesla received less in federal loans than several other auto companies and paid them back early with full interest (a net gain for tax payers). SpaceX has lowered the cost of launch and again, saved money for the government/taxpayers. The EV tax credit is not specific to Tesla, it's available to purchasers of EV's or partial EV's from all manufacturers.

thinkcontext 9y ago

In the case of SpaceX he took very significant risk. After failing 3 launches they made the 4th, averting bankruptcy for both SpaceX, Tesla and Musk himself. SpaceX has saved the US $millions by unseating a fat incumbent in ULA. The savings could stretch into $billions soon and will grow larger if reusable rockets get certified for national security launches.

Nokinside 9y ago

He funnels less money than his competitors. That's how he wins the contracts. If you don't want private enterprise to get money from the government, you need to argue one of the following: * Government should develop it's own aerospace and military industry without private sector. * Government should stop space research and military should stop launching spy satellites.