5 ms·
The problem with most government programs are not their stated intentions, it's that their actual results aren't very good or cost-effective.
by nickff 7y ago
The problem with most government programs are not their stated intentions, it's that their actual results aren't very good or cost-effective.
- throwanem 7y agoAs opposed, of course, to the awe-inspiring efficiency of the status quo circa the Gilded Age - or today.
- nickff 7y agoWell, SpaceX seems to be developing rockets at 3x the speed and 5x lower cost than NASA, so I would say that there are some examples of 'awe-inspiring efficiency'.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ssivark 7y agoCherry-picking much?
- throwanem 7y agoHey, if the strongest argument he's got is to point to something that at best solves no social problems and arguably somewhat exacerbates at least a couple, that's pretty telling in its own right, you know?
- nickff 7y agoWell on the corporate side, there's a spectrum from SpaceX to Theranos. On the government side there's a spectrum from Switzerland to North Korea... I'll admit there are many good and bad examples of both, but I think the average company does more good than the average government.
- pbourke 7y agoYou have provided an example of the above approach: > There is a name for the third position where government works together to guide industry without centralizing everything SpaceX's customer is NASA.
- nickff 7y agoOne of SpaceX's customers is NASA; SpaceX launches satellites for many government and corporate clients.[1] NASA and the USAF have definitely been good customers for them, but SpaceX was started in 2002, with no government seed funding, and it didn't receive any government money for ~5 years. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He...