5 ms·

> The idea is that billionaires can better focus resources on things they seem important than governments. Stross anticipated your reply though, > They can fu

> The idea is that billionaires can better focus resources on things they seem important than governments. Stross anticipated your reply though, > They can fund lobbying groups and politicians, rant about colonizing Mars, and buy midlife crisis toys like Twitter or weekend getaways on a space station, but their scope for effecting real change is actually tiny on a global scale. Even Putin and Xi, who are at the state-level actor end of the scale (individually they're multi-billionaires: but they also control nuclear weapons, armies, and populations in 8-9 digits) have little global leverage. Putin's catastrophic adventure in Ukraine has revealed how threadbare the emperor's suit is.

avmich 4y ago
Right, and these words are basically wrong. It doesn't matter how big GWP is comparing to a persons' resources, it's the application of these resources, which often can't be done on government level - they are largely for different things, can't risk that much, in practice aren't very efficient etc. Of course there are also arguments to the contrary - e.g. Apollo project was rather effective, large military operations like working during WW2 shows government can actually be quite efficient etc. That doesn't matter though, we only need to point to an example - let it be SpaceX - when a billionaire shows better results than the government.
- AftHurrahWinch 4y ago
  > we only need to point to an example - let it be SpaceX - when a billionaire shows better results than the government. Stross anticipated this too: > Granting individuals enormous leverage can sometimes be socially useful. But before you point at Musk and Tesla or SpaceX, I need to remind you that he didn't found Tesla, he merely bought into it then took over: SpaceX's focus on reusability is good, but we had reusable space launchers before—the only really new angle is that it's a cost-reduction measure. Starlink isn't an original, it's merely a modern, bigger, faster version of 1990's Teledesic (which fell victim to over-ambitious technology goals and the dot-com bust). Meanwhile, billionaires can do immense damage: the Koch network has largely bankrolled climate change denial, Musk's Mars colony plan is fatally flawed, and so on. You say "better" results than the government... but it's not obvious that a government can't make these marginal improvements... you just assert that "these words are basically wrong".
  - avmich 4y ago
    Yes, and here the author also makes mistakes. Founding Tesla is irrelevant; results of Tesla are. Saying that reusable space launchers existed before SpaceX is like saying there were people in America before Columbus - technically true, but Columbus achievement is colossal, similarly the achievements of SpaceX. But we're comparing billionaires and governments :) - will you say Space Shuttle, or Buran, are comparable to Falcon 9? Author didn't provide any arguments for Mars colony's plan :) so let's not get there. As I said, the article is very questionable - and not because billionaires couldn't use some healthy attention, just because too many statements in the article are doubtful.

avmich 4y ago

Right, and these words are basically wrong. It doesn't matter how big GWP is comparing to a persons' resources, it's the application of these resources, which often can't be done on government level - they are largely for different things, can't risk that much, in practice aren't very efficient etc. Of course there are also arguments to the contrary - e.g. Apollo project was rather effective, large military operations like working during WW2 shows government can actually be quite efficient etc. That doesn't matter though, we only need to point to an example - let it be SpaceX - when a billionaire shows better results than the government.

AftHurrahWinch 4y ago
> we only need to point to an example - let it be SpaceX - when a billionaire shows better results than the government. Stross anticipated this too: > Granting individuals enormous leverage can sometimes be socially useful. But before you point at Musk and Tesla or SpaceX, I need to remind you that he didn't found Tesla, he merely bought into it then took over: SpaceX's focus on reusability is good, but we had reusable space launchers before—the only really new angle is that it's a cost-reduction measure. Starlink isn't an original, it's merely a modern, bigger, faster version of 1990's Teledesic (which fell victim to over-ambitious technology goals and the dot-com bust). Meanwhile, billionaires can do immense damage: the Koch network has largely bankrolled climate change denial, Musk's Mars colony plan is fatally flawed, and so on. You say "better" results than the government... but it's not obvious that a government can't make these marginal improvements... you just assert that "these words are basically wrong".
- avmich 4y ago
  Yes, and here the author also makes mistakes. Founding Tesla is irrelevant; results of Tesla are. Saying that reusable space launchers existed before SpaceX is like saying there were people in America before Columbus - technically true, but Columbus achievement is colossal, similarly the achievements of SpaceX. But we're comparing billionaires and governments :) - will you say Space Shuttle, or Buran, are comparable to Falcon 9? Author didn't provide any arguments for Mars colony's plan :) so let's not get there. As I said, the article is very questionable - and not because billionaires couldn't use some healthy attention, just because too many statements in the article are doubtful.