36 ms·

Ah yes, the Herbert Hoover approach.

MagicWishMonkey 5y ago
I wonder how many of these people rant about how bad the government is while using GPS to navigate their way to work on government funded roadways.
- evilduck 5y ago
  On the DARPA derived internet, no less.
  - nradov 5y ago
    DARPA funded the basic research. Then the actual Internet was largely built by for-profit private sector companies. That hybrid model seems to usually be the most effective for major new innovations.
    - JohnWhigham 5y ago
      DARPA funded most of the grant money used by research entities to create the various parts of the IP stack. That's not "basic research". Simply put, were it not for DARPA, we wouldn't have the Internet of today. We'd probably have something like it, but something a lot more closed off and walled garden-esque.
- abfan1127 5y ago
  As if those things wouldn't innovate in the market? Or because 1 thing came from the government, then all things the government touches are gold?
  - ramesh31 5y ago
    The free market can do a lot when it has the basic requirements to operate, but the point is that government spending is the only solution when we end up with a chicken/egg problem as the OP pointed out.
  - bumby 5y ago
    This take might have some hindsight bias. While a lot of industry seem obvious and worth the investment today, when they were nascent that wasn't the case. Would GPS exist if private companies had to fund the rocket and satellite research just to tell you where you are on the map? Or would the aircraft industry exist? Most of those types of high-risk, nebulous reward (at least on short-to-near-term timescales) industries are predicated on government investment. SpaceX, as great as they are, probably wouldn't exist if they didn't have NASA as a customer.
    - abfan1127 5y ago
      it certainly does have hindsight bias, on both sides. The Satellite TV and Radio industries spend the money to launch. Back in the 90s (during the age of early GPS), Motorola (iirc) tried to launch a satellite phone company too. NASA isn't that big of a customer. DirecTV was a huge consumer of rockets. As it turns out, SpaceX doesn't sell to them because they own their own rocket company.
      - bumby 5y ago
        >The Satellite TV and Radio industries spend the money to launch. Correct, but this is an after-the-fact understanding. They spend money to launch now because the industries are no longer nascent and being launched on platforms designed around government investment. The key to my point is that the government spends money when the industries are young and risky to develop platforms. If those platforms work out that helps the private sector have a less risky path down the road. This is why telecoms weren't rushing to develop rockets in the 1960s. >NASA isn't that big of a customer. This is very much the same thing. Early on, NASA was really the only SpaceX customer and NASA helped keep them from going bankrupt [1]. In addition, NASA made early launches more palatable because the government is self-insured. Government contracts help usher along young, risky companies until they could have a less risky business model that the private sector feels more comfortable with. It's very similar to aerospace development over 100 years ago with the Wright brothers and Curtis vying for Army contracts. Without those contracts, they are as much hobbyists as entrepreneurs. [1] https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/elon-musk-says-nasas-1-5-billion-contract-had-saved-spacex-from-going-broke-2502210 https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/elon-musk-says-nasas-1-5-billio...
- adventured 5y ago
  They can't even manage a trivial task like maintaining roads and bridges properly. You could have hardly picked a worse example than the government roads system (including our thousands of dilapidated bridges), which is in absolutely horrific condition and is a humiliating example for the government. It's the opposite of a good example. That's all due to lack of funding, one might suggest? They're not lacking for funds. They spent our money on blowing up other countries and then (occasionally) attempting to rebuild them. Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Korea and 497 other cases of meddling and foreign adventurism. There rests $10 trillion in infrastructure money. No, they have had plenty of our money to spend, and they chose to squander it. What ever would we do if we didn't have those hyper incompetent clowns to manage our roads. GPS is trivial. If Russia can do it, various US private corporations could easily do it just the same.
  - anotherman554 5y ago
    US private corporations maintaining roads implies a society like the one depictive in the Robocop movies. It's fun to see you prosing that unironically.

I wonder how many of these people rant about how bad the government is while using GPS to navigate their way to work on government funded roadways.

evilduck 5y ago
On the DARPA derived internet, no less.
- nradov 5y ago
  DARPA funded the basic research. Then the actual Internet was largely built by for-profit private sector companies. That hybrid model seems to usually be the most effective for major new innovations.
  - JohnWhigham 5y ago
    DARPA funded most of the grant money used by research entities to create the various parts of the IP stack. That's not "basic research". Simply put, were it not for DARPA, we wouldn't have the Internet of today. We'd probably have something like it, but something a lot more closed off and walled garden-esque.
abfan1127 5y ago
As if those things wouldn't innovate in the market? Or because 1 thing came from the government, then all things the government touches are gold?
- ramesh31 5y ago
  The free market can do a lot when it has the basic requirements to operate, but the point is that government spending is the only solution when we end up with a chicken/egg problem as the OP pointed out.
- bumby 5y ago
  This take might have some hindsight bias. While a lot of industry seem obvious and worth the investment today, when they were nascent that wasn't the case. Would GPS exist if private companies had to fund the rocket and satellite research just to tell you where you are on the map? Or would the aircraft industry exist? Most of those types of high-risk, nebulous reward (at least on short-to-near-term timescales) industries are predicated on government investment. SpaceX, as great as they are, probably wouldn't exist if they didn't have NASA as a customer.
  - abfan1127 5y ago
    it certainly does have hindsight bias, on both sides. The Satellite TV and Radio industries spend the money to launch. Back in the 90s (during the age of early GPS), Motorola (iirc) tried to launch a satellite phone company too. NASA isn't that big of a customer. DirecTV was a huge consumer of rockets. As it turns out, SpaceX doesn't sell to them because they own their own rocket company.
    - bumby 5y ago
      >The Satellite TV and Radio industries spend the money to launch. Correct, but this is an after-the-fact understanding. They spend money to launch now because the industries are no longer nascent and being launched on platforms designed around government investment. The key to my point is that the government spends money when the industries are young and risky to develop platforms. If those platforms work out that helps the private sector have a less risky path down the road. This is why telecoms weren't rushing to develop rockets in the 1960s. >NASA isn't that big of a customer. This is very much the same thing. Early on, NASA was really the only SpaceX customer and NASA helped keep them from going bankrupt [1]. In addition, NASA made early launches more palatable because the government is self-insured. Government contracts help usher along young, risky companies until they could have a less risky business model that the private sector feels more comfortable with. It's very similar to aerospace development over 100 years ago with the Wright brothers and Curtis vying for Army contracts. Without those contracts, they are as much hobbyists as entrepreneurs. [1] https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/elon-musk-says-nasas-1-5-billion-contract-had-saved-spacex-from-going-broke-2502210 https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/elon-musk-says-nasas-1-5-billio...
adventured 5y ago
They can't even manage a trivial task like maintaining roads and bridges properly. You could have hardly picked a worse example than the government roads system (including our thousands of dilapidated bridges), which is in absolutely horrific condition and is a humiliating example for the government. It's the opposite of a good example. That's all due to lack of funding, one might suggest? They're not lacking for funds. They spent our money on blowing up other countries and then (occasionally) attempting to rebuild them. Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Korea and 497 other cases of meddling and foreign adventurism. There rests $10 trillion in infrastructure money. No, they have had plenty of our money to spend, and they chose to squander it. What ever would we do if we didn't have those hyper incompetent clowns to manage our roads. GPS is trivial. If Russia can do it, various US private corporations could easily do it just the same.
- anotherman554 5y ago
  US private corporations maintaining roads implies a society like the one depictive in the Robocop movies. It's fun to see you prosing that unironically.