13 ms·

Not sure if you’re being sarcastic, but surely taxpayers subsidizing billionaires’ rocket testing and allowing the gains to be privatized is a net loss for soci

Not sure if you’re being sarcastic, but surely taxpayers subsidizing billionaires’ rocket testing and allowing the gains to be privatized is a net loss for society, no?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
relativ575 5y ago
Can you be specific on the subsidizing? Loaded comments without backed sources are intellectually lazy.
- nabla9 5y ago
  'google: "SpaceX subsidies" SpaceX gets almost $900 million in federal subsidies to deliver broadband to rural America https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/tech/spacex-starlink-subsidies-fcc-scn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/tech/spacex-starlink-subsidie... SpaceX just won $885 million in federal subsidies to expand Starlink, Elon Musk's satellite-internet project https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/spacex-just-won-dollar885-million-in-federal-subsidies-to-expand-starlink-elon-musks-satellite-internet-project/ar-BB1bInbu https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/spacex-just-won-do... In addition to that SpaceX is government contractor. SpaceX and Blue Origin are the next Boeing/Lockheed. Government gives them both money to R&D so that they don't have just one innovative supplier. Tesla is a great example of government project. Tesla has received $3-4 billion in subsidies. edit: SpaceX has received other direct subsidies. NASA has given seed money and development funding for Dragon, Falcon 9, engines and demonstration launches ($248M at least) https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/453605main_Commercial_Space_Minutes_4_26_2010.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/453605main_Commercial_Space_Minutes...
  - greenwich26 5y ago
    $900 million = 5 days of federal food stamps spending $3-4 billion = 3 weeks of federal food stamps spending I know which I think is the better government expenditure
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - luffapi 5y ago
      You realize the rich typically feed the poor out of necessity because if they don’t the poor will rise up and murder them, right? People like Bezos and Musk only exist because we allow them to exist. That they pretend to be capitalists while sucking down more government money than anyone, makes them hypocrites at best.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ben_w 5y ago
        Hungry starving sick people make the least effective revolutionaries. They’re also not very good at spending money on consumer goods when they don’t have any, which Amazon absolutely needs. (Tesla needs a lot of people above average income, given their cheapest offering). And these two giants aren’t the only places people can work. (Not enough by itself, but still a massive improvement compared to the situation leading to the French Revolution). Super-rich as a class exists because we let them exist, but there is a reason we let them exist… and a reason we have things like the SEC and FTC to stomp on them if/when they get out of line.
        luffapi 5y ago
        > Hungry starving sick people make the least effective revolutionaries. This is clearly historically incorrect. > Super-rich as a class exists because we let them exist, but there is a reason we let them exist… What reason is that? They exist because they are powerful, thus hard to topple. That the SEC and FTC are so ineffective (and ridiculously small pieces of the puzzle) is evidence of that.
        ben_w 5y ago
        > This is clearly historically incorrect. > What reason is that? How long do you have? https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs in particular from 13:30 onwards, though the whole thing and the follow up video are both worth watching.
  - CivBase 5y ago
    Are you suggesting $1.8M for expansion of Starlink to deliver broadband to rural America is not a net win? As someone in the midwest US, Starlink is the first realistic opportunity for many people I know to access broadband internet. My mother-in-law has had to teach from home all year using her cellphone as a hotspot because that's the best internet she could get no matter how much she payed.
    - nabla9 5y ago
      I'm not suggesting. People are engaged in heated normative[1] discussion with little or no facts. I am not. Even saying Tesla is a great example of a government project does not mean it's good or bad. Just a great example. I just wanted to add some facts to the discussion. Not enough, but some. I think it would be great to find out the total indirect and direct subsidies these companies receive, but I could not find it. ---- 1: Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible.
      - CivBase 5y ago
        I appreciate the information. I did not have an opinion on the matter until you provided context that the subsidies were specifically for StarLink.
    - atatatat 5y ago
      We already paid companies to roll out copper to your area in the 90s, and they just didn't do it.
      - CivBase 5y ago
        StarLink has already rolled out.
        atatatat 5y ago
        How are your speeds, horse?!
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    > In addition to that SpaceX is government contractor. It's important to note that SpaceX is different from most space-related government contractor in that they mostly sell a packaged service, whereas other contractors before it had development contracts. Boeing / ULA etc were paid to develop launchers, SpaceX sells launches. (I know that SpaceX benefited from subsidies towards achieving that, but their competitors did not achieve that or even tried.) The key difference is that they are not (entirely) incentivized on sucking on the subsidies teats. That the US government pays them to provide a public service makes them more akin to any utility than to typical government contractors.
    - nabla9 5y ago
      NASA has given seed money and development funding for Dragon, Falcon 9, engines and demonstration launches ($248M at least) https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/453605main_Commercial_Space_Minutes_4_26_2010.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/453605main_Commercial_Space_Minutes... I think this is the same way as Boeing and others get their money for development.
      - himinlomax 5y ago
        The difference is that Boeing and others are financed the way a public works would be, like a bridge or highway. They thus have no incentive to get cheaper / more efficient once they get the contract, and in fact make more money the less efficient they are -- as long as the government doesn't tire of paying them. SpaceX gets development subsidies, like the others do, but they sell launches, not an ongoing project. As a result, the more efficient they are, the more profit they make.
        nabla9 5y ago
        United Launch Alliance (ULA), sells launches. ULA sells launches for Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V. ULA is Boeing/Lockheed joint venture. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, New Horizons, Starliner crew capsule ... basically all NASA and DoD launches come from ULA.
Majestic121 5y ago
No. There's no guarantee that taxpayers money would be used for a better endeavor if it was used otherwise. And the very definition of better endeavor is pretty shaky in any case. So one can debate on whether optimal resource allocation is done by the government or private individuals, but it is not 'surely' better to have the government allocate the resources.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  Why does the richest individual on the planet need a handout of government cash for a project he wants to pursue anyway? Will there be any element of cheap subsidised access to space in return for the government's investment? Or is it exactly what it seems to be - a no-strings handout? As for better endeavours - perhaps you're underestimating the economic utility of a single payer health care system which wouldn't bankrupt 500,000 individuals a year. (For example.)

Not sure if you’re being sarcastic, but surely taxpayers subsidizing billionaires’ rocket testing and allowing the gains to be privatized is a net loss for society, no?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

relativ575 5y ago

Can you be specific on the subsidizing? Loaded comments without backed sources are intellectually lazy.

nabla9 5y ago
'google: "SpaceX subsidies" SpaceX gets almost $900 million in federal subsidies to deliver broadband to rural America https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/tech/spacex-starlink-subsidies-fcc-scn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/tech/spacex-starlink-subsidie... SpaceX just won $885 million in federal subsidies to expand Starlink, Elon Musk's satellite-internet project https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/spacex-just-won-dollar885-million-in-federal-subsidies-to-expand-starlink-elon-musks-satellite-internet-project/ar-BB1bInbu https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/spacex-just-won-do... In addition to that SpaceX is government contractor. SpaceX and Blue Origin are the next Boeing/Lockheed. Government gives them both money to R&D so that they don't have just one innovative supplier. Tesla is a great example of government project. Tesla has received $3-4 billion in subsidies. edit: SpaceX has received other direct subsidies. NASA has given seed money and development funding for Dragon, Falcon 9, engines and demonstration launches ($248M at least) https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/453605main_Commercial_Space_Minutes_4_26_2010.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/453605main_Commercial_Space_Minutes...
- greenwich26 5y ago
  $900 million = 5 days of federal food stamps spending $3-4 billion = 3 weeks of federal food stamps spending I know which I think is the better government expenditure
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - luffapi 5y ago
    You realize the rich typically feed the poor out of necessity because if they don’t the poor will rise up and murder them, right? People like Bezos and Musk only exist because we allow them to exist. That they pretend to be capitalists while sucking down more government money than anyone, makes them hypocrites at best.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Hungry starving sick people make the least effective revolutionaries. They’re also not very good at spending money on consumer goods when they don’t have any, which Amazon absolutely needs. (Tesla needs a lot of people above average income, given their cheapest offering). And these two giants aren’t the only places people can work. (Not enough by itself, but still a massive improvement compared to the situation leading to the French Revolution). Super-rich as a class exists because we let them exist, but there is a reason we let them exist… and a reason we have things like the SEC and FTC to stomp on them if/when they get out of line.
      - luffapi 5y ago
        > Hungry starving sick people make the least effective revolutionaries. This is clearly historically incorrect. > Super-rich as a class exists because we let them exist, but there is a reason we let them exist… What reason is that? They exist because they are powerful, thus hard to topple. That the SEC and FTC are so ineffective (and ridiculously small pieces of the puzzle) is evidence of that.
        ben_w 5y ago
        > This is clearly historically incorrect. > What reason is that? How long do you have? https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs in particular from 13:30 onwards, though the whole thing and the follow up video are both worth watching.
- CivBase 5y ago
  Are you suggesting $1.8M for expansion of Starlink to deliver broadband to rural America is not a net win? As someone in the midwest US, Starlink is the first realistic opportunity for many people I know to access broadband internet. My mother-in-law has had to teach from home all year using her cellphone as a hotspot because that's the best internet she could get no matter how much she payed.
  - nabla9 5y ago
    I'm not suggesting. People are engaged in heated normative[1] discussion with little or no facts. I am not. Even saying Tesla is a great example of a government project does not mean it's good or bad. Just a great example. I just wanted to add some facts to the discussion. Not enough, but some. I think it would be great to find out the total indirect and direct subsidies these companies receive, but I could not find it. ---- 1: Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible.
    - CivBase 5y ago
      I appreciate the information. I did not have an opinion on the matter until you provided context that the subsidies were specifically for StarLink.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    We already paid companies to roll out copper to your area in the 90s, and they just didn't do it.
    - CivBase 5y ago
      StarLink has already rolled out.
      - atatatat 5y ago
        How are your speeds, horse?!
- himinlomax 5y ago
  > In addition to that SpaceX is government contractor. It's important to note that SpaceX is different from most space-related government contractor in that they mostly sell a packaged service, whereas other contractors before it had development contracts. Boeing / ULA etc were paid to develop launchers, SpaceX sells launches. (I know that SpaceX benefited from subsidies towards achieving that, but their competitors did not achieve that or even tried.) The key difference is that they are not (entirely) incentivized on sucking on the subsidies teats. That the US government pays them to provide a public service makes them more akin to any utility than to typical government contractors.
  - nabla9 5y ago
    NASA has given seed money and development funding for Dragon, Falcon 9, engines and demonstration launches ($248M at least) https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/453605main_Commercial_Space_Minutes_4_26_2010.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/453605main_Commercial_Space_Minutes... I think this is the same way as Boeing and others get their money for development.
    - himinlomax 5y ago
      The difference is that Boeing and others are financed the way a public works would be, like a bridge or highway. They thus have no incentive to get cheaper / more efficient once they get the contract, and in fact make more money the less efficient they are -- as long as the government doesn't tire of paying them. SpaceX gets development subsidies, like the others do, but they sell launches, not an ongoing project. As a result, the more efficient they are, the more profit they make.
      - nabla9 5y ago
        United Launch Alliance (ULA), sells launches. ULA sells launches for Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V. ULA is Boeing/Lockheed joint venture. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, New Horizons, Starliner crew capsule ... basically all NASA and DoD launches come from ULA.

Majestic121 5y ago

No. There's no guarantee that taxpayers money would be used for a better endeavor if it was used otherwise. And the very definition of better endeavor is pretty shaky in any case. So one can debate on whether optimal resource allocation is done by the government or private individuals, but it is not 'surely' better to have the government allocate the resources.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Why does the richest individual on the planet need a handout of government cash for a project he wants to pursue anyway? Will there be any element of cheap subsidised access to space in return for the government's investment? Or is it exactly what it seems to be - a no-strings handout? As for better endeavours - perhaps you're underestimating the economic utility of a single payer health care system which wouldn't bankrupt 500,000 individuals a year. (For example.)