7 ms·

> Much of Western Europe has similar GDP per-capita and much less inequality. And also no SpaceX. EDIT: We used to make the computer in your pocket, but now t

> Much of Western Europe has similar GDP per-capita and much less inequality. And also no SpaceX. EDIT: We used to make the computer in your pocket, but now that too is in the US and China.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
SpaceX wasn't built from scratch. They had some ex-NASA talent and depend on publicly owned launch facilities. IMO on the whole they're also not a great example of sustainable progress. (Unless I'm overestimating their carbon footprint.)
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > […] and depend on publicly owned launch facilities. And were awarded public contracts early on: * https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > SpaceX wasn't built from scratch Neither was the government space program. Besides, NASA has consistently been completely unable at making launches cost-effective. NASA failed at making reusable rockets. NASA simply retreated. Compare the arcs of NASA's space shuttle with what SpaceX is accomplishing.
  - KittenInABox 5y ago
    I don't really think SpaceX's existence is a reasonable measurement of the merits of economic inequality.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      An opinion without any sort of rationale doesn't mean much.
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    Comparing Apollo to SpaceX would be fun too. NASA, like other government projects (Manhattan Project for example) are unbelievable when run like a startup. But after their objective is complete they have a tendency to become a bureaucracy and ossify. We aren’t good at scaling things down or reimagining them after the huge funding phase is over. They tend to become an expensive liability that accomplishes things but becomes ineffective overall, ultimately decaying into a retirement home. It’s hardly their own fault as the funding is cut and there’s no vision or will left as the remaining lifers fight over scraps.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      Sure, compare away. How much did Apollo cost? I read some people that it took 400,000 people. The Apollo program had more or less a blank check, as did the Manhatten project. Both were completely unsustainable. The space shuttle was unsustainable, too. Partly because the winged craft design was the result of politics rather than economic sense. SpaceX, however, looks to be very much sustainable, and profitable. SpaceX has rebooted the entire space industry in the US.
      - danShumway 5y ago
        > Both were completely unsustainable. They were sustainable in the sense that they kickstarted something the private market wasn't interested in doing at the time, and then made that knowledge available in a way that the private market could leverage and commercialize. Same as the Internet. Companies didn't build the Internet, it got kickstarted outside of the market by the government and by researchers/universities, and then it was (partially) handed over to the market so it could be optimized. In general, we don't try to get the government to be hyper-efficient. We try to get the government to fill in gaps that the market is unwilling to address, and to occasionally step in and regulate/subsidize the market when it goes off the rails. One of the biggest purposes of Capitalism is to use the market as an optimizer when possible. But you're kind of jumping all over the place in these threads. I don't understand what this current debate you're having over government efficiency has to do with either inequality or Adam Smith. The original article's argument was that Capitalism does not require maximizing inequality, and that seeking to minimize inequality is not fundamentally incompatible with a Capitalist system. The debate over Socialism vs Capitalism has very little to do with that argument, the article doesn't even mention Socialism.
  - acdha 5y ago
    > Compare the arcs of NASA's space shuttle with what SpaceX is accomplishing. The private sector also comes in flavors like ULA, Lockheed Martin, or Boeing. Given that NASA was prevented from continuing their successful approach in favor of building what Congress wanted to steer money to major private companies, any explanation which focuses on the sector alone is guaranteed to be wrong. What matters is how the incentives are structured: giving money to a contractor to keep people employed in certain areas won’t yield successful launch systems the way paying for successful launches will. (And, no, it’s not as simple as saying the root cause is government: those companies spend enormous amounts of money trying to influence the government so the relationship again is not that simple.)
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      You're pointing out that politics was a big factor in NASA's shortcomings. Of course, that's one of the reasons why socialism fails. One can't build a prosperous economy via jobs programs. > their successful approach NASA successfully landed on the moon, which was a great accomplishment. What they did not do successfully was do it in a sustainable, cost-effective manner. Which is why NASA's budget was cut. An economy simply cannot consist of operations that are all losing money.
  - whakim 5y ago
    I think it's prima facie clear that inequality itself isn't a prime driver of "innovation," whatever that means. Was Haiti circa 1780 (one of the most unequal societies to have ever existed) particularly innovative? Is the United States of 2021 more innovative than the United States of 1970? Is Saudi Arabia more innovative than Germany? Perhaps it's true that SpaceX couldn't exist somewhere else, but I'm not sure it has much to do with inequality.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      The driver is economic freedom, which produces both inequality and prosperity. Trying to force equality means you've got to hammer people down, and that means take away the freedom. Tyranny, such as Haiti, also produce inequality, but without the prosperity.
      - whakim 5y ago
        I'm not really sure what "economic freedom" means - and I'd be able to respond better if you defined it. Haiti wasn't a tyranny. In fact, it was a prime example of proprietarian capitalism run totally amok - a regime in which the state did not restrict individuals from, say, owning other humans and reaping large profits on them.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        Free markets are when people are free to trade with whoever they want to, at the price they both freely agree to. It does not include the right to harm others or enslave them. Enslaving people obviously prevents them from having the right to trade freely. > Haiti wasn't a tyranny Owning other people is tyrannical.
        whakim 5y ago
        > Free markets are when people are free to trade with whoever they want to, at the price they both freely agree to. Except the numerous exceptions where that isn't true. I can't engage in insider trading. I can't get a child to give me his lunch money in exchange for a lollipop. I can't deal heroin. The point being that markets aren't absolutely free, they're free within the limits of what we deem to be culturally and politically acceptable. If you look at the logic surrounding the end of slavery in 19th century Europe, much of the debate was about the property rights of slaveholders and how they ought to be compensated for their lost property.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  SpaceX also takes in billions in subsidies from the US government.
- adventured 5y ago
  > SpaceX wasn't built from scratch. How is that a relevant point at all to what the parent said? The US produced it. The US produced NASA. Why shouldn't SpaceX benefit from NASA and vice versa. SpaceX is doing taxpayers a tremendous service by having replaced the disaster that was the Space Shuttle and its $500m launch costs. To say nothing of SpaceX hopefully getting us back to the moon and then on to Mars. Left to NASA (and or the prior launch monopoly), how long would that have taken and how much would it have cost? See: SLS. They're better off working together, contributing what they're good at, resulting in a better overall outcome. Western Europe's economic dynamism is overall shockingly bad. And their stagnation in terms of innovation and new wealth creation is similarly bad. In terms of old wealth vs new wealth it's the worst among major economic regions - they're still turning over the same old family fortunes decade after decade. The old dynastic wealth is strangling Western Europe. There is a price to be paid for the approach that Western Europe follows. Across the long-term they're falling further and further behind the US and China in strength, both economic and military. Europe risks becoming a colony split between two superpowers. Both Merkel and Macron are fully aware of that, they see the power gulf. If the US were politically wise, it'd be subtle with how it handles Europe, keep them asleep at the wheel (Trump's belligerence nearly spooked them into action by reminding them of their weak positioning). Here are the economic engines - the economic might - of Europe: Germany GDP: 2021 $4.3t (2021 IMF estimates) | 2008 $3.7t ($4.8t inflation adjusted) UK GDP: 2021 $3.1t | 2008 $2.9t ($3.7t adjusted) France GDP: 2021 $2.9t | 2008 $2.9t ($3.7t adjusted) Italy GDP: 2021 $2.1t | 2008 $2.4t ($3.1t adjusted) Russia GDP: 2021 $1.7t | 2008 $1.7t ($2.2t adjusted) Spain GDP: 2021 $1.4t | 2008 $1.6t ($2.1t adjusted) Netherlands GDP: 2021 $1t | 2008 $950b ($1.2t adjusted) Poland GDP: 2021 $650b | 2008 $533b ($689b adjusted) Sweden GDP: 2021 $622b | 2008 $517b ($669b adjusted) Belgium GDP: 2021 $580b | $515b ($666b adjusted) US GDP: 2021 $22.6t | 2008 $14.7t ($19t adjusted) China GDP: 2021 $16.6t | 2008 $4.6t ($5.9t adjusted) Notice anything interesting? Greece and Italy have seen zero net economic growth in roughly 30 years. Germany and France have seen zero net economic growth in 26 years. Wait a minute, that is surely impossible? Germany is an economic juggernaut, everyone says so. Germany GDP 1995: $2.6t. That's $4.5t in today's dollar, their GDP estimate for 2021 is $4.3t. France's GDP was $1.6t in 1995, which is $2.9t in today's dollar, their GDP estimate for 2021 is $2.9t. For Germany, their economy has net contracted over 26 years. Germany and France are already so far deep into their economic malaise they've nearly lost a full generation to it. The UK was at $3.1t in 2007. That's $4.1t in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $3.1t. They're down a trillion dollars. They've added nearly 10% to their population in that time. That's a lot less economy per person. What does that process do to social costs and services over time, as well as the burden per capita? Spain's economy is 7% larger than it was in 1990, while their population has expanded by 20% in that time. Sweden's GDP in 1990: $261b; $560b in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $625b. That's three decades to grow 12% (their population increased by ~20% in that time). Finland was $141b in 1990; $302b in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $300b, so zero economic growth in a generation. Austria's GDP in 1995: $241b; $437b in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $481b. Roughly 10% growth over 26 years. Their population expanded by 10-11% in that time. Belgium's GDP in 1995: $288b; $523b in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $578b. Roughly 10% growth over 26 years. Their population has expanded by 14% in that time. Since 2008 the US has added economy equal to: Germany + France + Netherlands. China's outcome speaks for itself. Europe is at risk of losing an entire generation to zero or negative economic growth, while social costs keep increasing. That's obviously an unsustainable, looming disaster. It's tilting Europe into a position of subservience (and that includes Russia in regards to China). But growth isn't everything? Sure, if the cost of living stays comparable and social costs don't climb, which hasn't been the case over the last three decades as populations have continued to age in affluent nations.
sushid 5y ago
SpaceX wasn't built it a vacuum. The US gov't did a lot to help it succeed. As they did for Tesla

> Much of Western Europe has similar GDP per-capita and much less inequality. And also no SpaceX. EDIT: We used to make the computer in your pocket, but now that too is in the US and China.

paulryanrogers 5y ago

SpaceX wasn't built from scratch. They had some ex-NASA talent and depend on publicly owned launch facilities. IMO on the whole they're also not a great example of sustainable progress. (Unless I'm overestimating their carbon footprint.)

throw0101a 5y ago
> […] and depend on publicly owned launch facilities. And were awarded public contracts early on: * https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html
WalterBright 5y ago
> SpaceX wasn't built from scratch Neither was the government space program. Besides, NASA has consistently been completely unable at making launches cost-effective. NASA failed at making reusable rockets. NASA simply retreated. Compare the arcs of NASA's space shuttle with what SpaceX is accomplishing.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  I don't really think SpaceX's existence is a reasonable measurement of the merits of economic inequality.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    An opinion without any sort of rationale doesn't mean much.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  Comparing Apollo to SpaceX would be fun too. NASA, like other government projects (Manhattan Project for example) are unbelievable when run like a startup. But after their objective is complete they have a tendency to become a bureaucracy and ossify. We aren’t good at scaling things down or reimagining them after the huge funding phase is over. They tend to become an expensive liability that accomplishes things but becomes ineffective overall, ultimately decaying into a retirement home. It’s hardly their own fault as the funding is cut and there’s no vision or will left as the remaining lifers fight over scraps.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Sure, compare away. How much did Apollo cost? I read some people that it took 400,000 people. The Apollo program had more or less a blank check, as did the Manhatten project. Both were completely unsustainable. The space shuttle was unsustainable, too. Partly because the winged craft design was the result of politics rather than economic sense. SpaceX, however, looks to be very much sustainable, and profitable. SpaceX has rebooted the entire space industry in the US.
    - danShumway 5y ago
      > Both were completely unsustainable. They were sustainable in the sense that they kickstarted something the private market wasn't interested in doing at the time, and then made that knowledge available in a way that the private market could leverage and commercialize. Same as the Internet. Companies didn't build the Internet, it got kickstarted outside of the market by the government and by researchers/universities, and then it was (partially) handed over to the market so it could be optimized. In general, we don't try to get the government to be hyper-efficient. We try to get the government to fill in gaps that the market is unwilling to address, and to occasionally step in and regulate/subsidize the market when it goes off the rails. One of the biggest purposes of Capitalism is to use the market as an optimizer when possible. But you're kind of jumping all over the place in these threads. I don't understand what this current debate you're having over government efficiency has to do with either inequality or Adam Smith. The original article's argument was that Capitalism does not require maximizing inequality, and that seeking to minimize inequality is not fundamentally incompatible with a Capitalist system. The debate over Socialism vs Capitalism has very little to do with that argument, the article doesn't even mention Socialism.
- acdha 5y ago
  > Compare the arcs of NASA's space shuttle with what SpaceX is accomplishing. The private sector also comes in flavors like ULA, Lockheed Martin, or Boeing. Given that NASA was prevented from continuing their successful approach in favor of building what Congress wanted to steer money to major private companies, any explanation which focuses on the sector alone is guaranteed to be wrong. What matters is how the incentives are structured: giving money to a contractor to keep people employed in certain areas won’t yield successful launch systems the way paying for successful launches will. (And, no, it’s not as simple as saying the root cause is government: those companies spend enormous amounts of money trying to influence the government so the relationship again is not that simple.)
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    You're pointing out that politics was a big factor in NASA's shortcomings. Of course, that's one of the reasons why socialism fails. One can't build a prosperous economy via jobs programs. > their successful approach NASA successfully landed on the moon, which was a great accomplishment. What they did not do successfully was do it in a sustainable, cost-effective manner. Which is why NASA's budget was cut. An economy simply cannot consist of operations that are all losing money.
- whakim 5y ago
  I think it's prima facie clear that inequality itself isn't a prime driver of "innovation," whatever that means. Was Haiti circa 1780 (one of the most unequal societies to have ever existed) particularly innovative? Is the United States of 2021 more innovative than the United States of 1970? Is Saudi Arabia more innovative than Germany? Perhaps it's true that SpaceX couldn't exist somewhere else, but I'm not sure it has much to do with inequality.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    The driver is economic freedom, which produces both inequality and prosperity. Trying to force equality means you've got to hammer people down, and that means take away the freedom. Tyranny, such as Haiti, also produce inequality, but without the prosperity.
    - whakim 5y ago
      I'm not really sure what "economic freedom" means - and I'd be able to respond better if you defined it. Haiti wasn't a tyranny. In fact, it was a prime example of proprietarian capitalism run totally amok - a regime in which the state did not restrict individuals from, say, owning other humans and reaping large profits on them.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        Free markets are when people are free to trade with whoever they want to, at the price they both freely agree to. It does not include the right to harm others or enslave them. Enslaving people obviously prevents them from having the right to trade freely. > Haiti wasn't a tyranny Owning other people is tyrannical.
        whakim 5y ago
        > Free markets are when people are free to trade with whoever they want to, at the price they both freely agree to. Except the numerous exceptions where that isn't true. I can't engage in insider trading. I can't get a child to give me his lunch money in exchange for a lollipop. I can't deal heroin. The point being that markets aren't absolutely free, they're free within the limits of what we deem to be culturally and politically acceptable. If you look at the logic surrounding the end of slavery in 19th century Europe, much of the debate was about the property rights of slaveholders and how they ought to be compensated for their lost property.
heavyset_go 5y ago
SpaceX also takes in billions in subsidies from the US government.
adventured 5y ago
> SpaceX wasn't built from scratch. How is that a relevant point at all to what the parent said? The US produced it. The US produced NASA. Why shouldn't SpaceX benefit from NASA and vice versa. SpaceX is doing taxpayers a tremendous service by having replaced the disaster that was the Space Shuttle and its $500m launch costs. To say nothing of SpaceX hopefully getting us back to the moon and then on to Mars. Left to NASA (and or the prior launch monopoly), how long would that have taken and how much would it have cost? See: SLS. They're better off working together, contributing what they're good at, resulting in a better overall outcome. Western Europe's economic dynamism is overall shockingly bad. And their stagnation in terms of innovation and new wealth creation is similarly bad. In terms of old wealth vs new wealth it's the worst among major economic regions - they're still turning over the same old family fortunes decade after decade. The old dynastic wealth is strangling Western Europe. There is a price to be paid for the approach that Western Europe follows. Across the long-term they're falling further and further behind the US and China in strength, both economic and military. Europe risks becoming a colony split between two superpowers. Both Merkel and Macron are fully aware of that, they see the power gulf. If the US were politically wise, it'd be subtle with how it handles Europe, keep them asleep at the wheel (Trump's belligerence nearly spooked them into action by reminding them of their weak positioning). Here are the economic engines - the economic might - of Europe: Germany GDP: 2021 $4.3t (2021 IMF estimates) | 2008 $3.7t ($4.8t inflation adjusted) UK GDP: 2021 $3.1t | 2008 $2.9t ($3.7t adjusted) France GDP: 2021 $2.9t | 2008 $2.9t ($3.7t adjusted) Italy GDP: 2021 $2.1t | 2008 $2.4t ($3.1t adjusted) Russia GDP: 2021 $1.7t | 2008 $1.7t ($2.2t adjusted) Spain GDP: 2021 $1.4t | 2008 $1.6t ($2.1t adjusted) Netherlands GDP: 2021 $1t | 2008 $950b ($1.2t adjusted) Poland GDP: 2021 $650b | 2008 $533b ($689b adjusted) Sweden GDP: 2021 $622b | 2008 $517b ($669b adjusted) Belgium GDP: 2021 $580b | $515b ($666b adjusted) US GDP: 2021 $22.6t | 2008 $14.7t ($19t adjusted) China GDP: 2021 $16.6t | 2008 $4.6t ($5.9t adjusted) Notice anything interesting? Greece and Italy have seen zero net economic growth in roughly 30 years. Germany and France have seen zero net economic growth in 26 years. Wait a minute, that is surely impossible? Germany is an economic juggernaut, everyone says so. Germany GDP 1995: $2.6t. That's $4.5t in today's dollar, their GDP estimate for 2021 is $4.3t. France's GDP was $1.6t in 1995, which is $2.9t in today's dollar, their GDP estimate for 2021 is $2.9t. For Germany, their economy has net contracted over 26 years. Germany and France are already so far deep into their economic malaise they've nearly lost a full generation to it. The UK was at $3.1t in 2007. That's $4.1t in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $3.1t. They're down a trillion dollars. They've added nearly 10% to their population in that time. That's a lot less economy per person. What does that process do to social costs and services over time, as well as the burden per capita? Spain's economy is 7% larger than it was in 1990, while their population has expanded by 20% in that time. Sweden's GDP in 1990: $261b; $560b in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $625b. That's three decades to grow 12% (their population increased by ~20% in that time). Finland was $141b in 1990; $302b in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $300b, so zero economic growth in a generation. Austria's GDP in 1995: $241b; $437b in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $481b. Roughly 10% growth over 26 years. Their population expanded by 10-11% in that time. Belgium's GDP in 1995: $288b; $523b in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $578b. Roughly 10% growth over 26 years. Their population has expanded by 14% in that time. Since 2008 the US has added economy equal to: Germany + France + Netherlands. China's outcome speaks for itself. Europe is at risk of losing an entire generation to zero or negative economic growth, while social costs keep increasing. That's obviously an unsustainable, looming disaster. It's tilting Europe into a position of subservience (and that includes Russia in regards to China). But growth isn't everything? Sure, if the cost of living stays comparable and social costs don't climb, which hasn't been the case over the last three decades as populations have continued to age in affluent nations.

sushid 5y ago

SpaceX wasn't built it a vacuum. The US gov't did a lot to help it succeed. As they did for Tesla