8 ms·

> SpaceX would not exist without inequality. Nor that supercomputer in your pocket. Neither would exist without massive government-led taxpayer-funded investme

> SpaceX would not exist without inequality. Nor that supercomputer in your pocket. Neither would exist without massive government-led taxpayer-funded investments, made during an era when inequality was far lower than it is today.

WalterBright 5y ago
Really? What was the "massive government led taxpayer funded investment" in your phone? Microsoft wrote a big check to Apple to save it from bankruptcy, not the government. Remember, it was Morse that invented digital telecommunications, and AT&T invented the transistor.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Modern phones wouldn’t be nearly as useful without ARPANET or CERN’s WWW, as a start.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Many other digital networks existed. I know they've been forgotten, but pretending it took a government to create a digital protocol is ignoring all that. Whenever anyone had two computers, the first thing they'd invent next is a digital protocol to connect them.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Won’t that be your response to any examples, then?
- frankbreetz 5y ago
  DARPA invented the internet
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    No, Morse invented the digital internet. It was wildly successful. Certainly, improvements were made later. Besides, a digital protocol is not the result of "massive government led taxpayer funded investment".
    - cyber_kinetist 5y ago
      Yes, but in order for that digital protocol to spread and be used widely, you usually need massive investments in infrastructure without immediate returns, which the state often funds. In fact, Morse was supported by Congress to build a demonstration of his telegraph system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Morse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Morse): > Morse made his last trip to Washington, D.C., in December 1842, stringing "wires between two committee rooms in the Capitol, and sent messages back and forth" to demonstrate his telegraph system.[19] Congress appropriated $30,000 (equal to $833,250 today) in 1843 for construction of an experimental 38-mile (61 km) telegraph line between Washington, D.C., and Baltimore along the right-of-way of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.[20] An impressive demonstration occurred on May 1, 1844, when news of the Whig Party's nomination of Henry Clay for U.S. president was telegraphed from the party's convention in Baltimore to the Capitol Building in Washington.[20]
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        That line was indeed funded by Congress. But it was a failure, eliciting zero interest from the public, and little to no use. After 3 months the line cost $1859.05 to run yet revenue was $193.56. The next line was funded when Morse partnered with Amos Kendall forming the Magnetic Telegraph Company. It built lines from New York to Philadelphia, Boston and Buffalo. Receipts for the first for days on the NY to Philadelphia run was $100. And the telegraph was off and running. 2 years later there was 2,000 miles if wire, and another two years added another 10,000 miles. The government line proved to be irrelevant, not crucial. See "The Victorian Internet" by Tom Standage
        WalterBright 5y ago
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  The government-led space race was responsible for rapidly accelerating the miniaturization of electronics.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    That doesn't imply government was required to miniaturize electronics. The advantages of reducing the size and power requirements of electronics have always been recognized and improvements in it have been ongoing since the first devices. After all, the transistor was invented by AT&T, not the government.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
How, exactly, would SpaceX not exist without massive government-led taxpayer-funded investments?
- acdha 5y ago
  SpaceX has done good work but it heavily drew from U.S. government investments in the space program & ICBMs which resulted in things like microchips and a lot of advanced manufacturing technologies (ever wonder why carbon fiber became common starting in the 90s? Defense aerospace demand dropped at the end of the Cold War and the manufacturers repurposed), not to mention a ton of engineering data about the launch systems, how to keep astronauts alive and functioning, etc. All of that foundational work happened when the top marginal tax rates were much higher, showing that “don’t tax rich people so they can fund innovation” is too simple a thesis to be correct.
  - nickik 5y ago
    SpaceX doesn't really use carbon fiber much just FYI. And of course literally any company is based on the whole history of technology. You might say that SpaceX only exists because rich people in China wanted to see fireworks (and there was likely state involvement). But equally does SpaceX depend on a long existing private market and centuries of private investment into manufacturing, incremental improvement in all related technologies and millions of experiments and different things tried. This arguments are kind of tiered by now. Its true that the way European state bureaucracy works makes companies like SpaceX unlikely. Its equally true that part of US ability to have such company is based on defense spending over the last 100 years.
    - acdha 5y ago
      The reason I mentioned carbon fiber wasn't specific to SpaceX but because it's a good example of something which had substantial up-front R&D costs which were largely paid by government investment to get it to the point where a company has a commercially-viable path to using it. There are a ton of similar examples — microchips being the most common here — and the point wasn't that everyone should develop their stack from scratch but rather that the original claim that scientific and engineering progress depends on current US levels of inequality just doesn't fit the history. Most people who aren't committed to a particular political position tend to agree that you need both and in the U.S. we've certainly seen a lot of successes from the combined approach, as well as educational levels of inefficiency when the incentives are misaligned.

WalterBright 5y ago

Really? What was the "massive government led taxpayer funded investment" in your phone? Microsoft wrote a big check to Apple to save it from bankruptcy, not the government. Remember, it was Morse that invented digital telecommunications, and AT&T invented the transistor.

ceejayoz 5y ago
Modern phones wouldn’t be nearly as useful without ARPANET or CERN’s WWW, as a start.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Many other digital networks existed. I know they've been forgotten, but pretending it took a government to create a digital protocol is ignoring all that. Whenever anyone had two computers, the first thing they'd invent next is a digital protocol to connect them.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Won’t that be your response to any examples, then?
frankbreetz 5y ago
DARPA invented the internet
- WalterBright 5y ago
  No, Morse invented the digital internet. It was wildly successful. Certainly, improvements were made later. Besides, a digital protocol is not the result of "massive government led taxpayer funded investment".
  - cyber_kinetist 5y ago
    Yes, but in order for that digital protocol to spread and be used widely, you usually need massive investments in infrastructure without immediate returns, which the state often funds. In fact, Morse was supported by Congress to build a demonstration of his telegraph system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Morse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Morse): > Morse made his last trip to Washington, D.C., in December 1842, stringing "wires between two committee rooms in the Capitol, and sent messages back and forth" to demonstrate his telegraph system.[19] Congress appropriated $30,000 (equal to $833,250 today) in 1843 for construction of an experimental 38-mile (61 km) telegraph line between Washington, D.C., and Baltimore along the right-of-way of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.[20] An impressive demonstration occurred on May 1, 1844, when news of the Whig Party's nomination of Henry Clay for U.S. president was telegraphed from the party's convention in Baltimore to the Capitol Building in Washington.[20]
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      That line was indeed funded by Congress. But it was a failure, eliciting zero interest from the public, and little to no use. After 3 months the line cost $1859.05 to run yet revenue was $193.56. The next line was funded when Morse partnered with Amos Kendall forming the Magnetic Telegraph Company. It built lines from New York to Philadelphia, Boston and Buffalo. Receipts for the first for days on the NY to Philadelphia run was $100. And the telegraph was off and running. 2 years later there was 2,000 miles if wire, and another two years added another 10,000 miles. The government line proved to be irrelevant, not crucial. See "The Victorian Internet" by Tom Standage
      - WalterBright 5y ago
heavyset_go 5y ago
The government-led space race was responsible for rapidly accelerating the miniaturization of electronics.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  That doesn't imply government was required to miniaturize electronics. The advantages of reducing the size and power requirements of electronics have always been recognized and improvements in it have been ongoing since the first devices. After all, the transistor was invented by AT&T, not the government.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

How, exactly, would SpaceX not exist without massive government-led taxpayer-funded investments?

acdha 5y ago
SpaceX has done good work but it heavily drew from U.S. government investments in the space program & ICBMs which resulted in things like microchips and a lot of advanced manufacturing technologies (ever wonder why carbon fiber became common starting in the 90s? Defense aerospace demand dropped at the end of the Cold War and the manufacturers repurposed), not to mention a ton of engineering data about the launch systems, how to keep astronauts alive and functioning, etc. All of that foundational work happened when the top marginal tax rates were much higher, showing that “don’t tax rich people so they can fund innovation” is too simple a thesis to be correct.
- nickik 5y ago
  SpaceX doesn't really use carbon fiber much just FYI. And of course literally any company is based on the whole history of technology. You might say that SpaceX only exists because rich people in China wanted to see fireworks (and there was likely state involvement). But equally does SpaceX depend on a long existing private market and centuries of private investment into manufacturing, incremental improvement in all related technologies and millions of experiments and different things tried. This arguments are kind of tiered by now. Its true that the way European state bureaucracy works makes companies like SpaceX unlikely. Its equally true that part of US ability to have such company is based on defense spending over the last 100 years.
  - acdha 5y ago
    The reason I mentioned carbon fiber wasn't specific to SpaceX but because it's a good example of something which had substantial up-front R&D costs which were largely paid by government investment to get it to the point where a company has a commercially-viable path to using it. There are a ton of similar examples — microchips being the most common here — and the point wasn't that everyone should develop their stack from scratch but rather that the original claim that scientific and engineering progress depends on current US levels of inequality just doesn't fit the history. Most people who aren't committed to a particular political position tend to agree that you need both and in the U.S. we've certainly seen a lot of successes from the combined approach, as well as educational levels of inefficiency when the incentives are misaligned.