3 ms·

Right, but we're not comparing the government vs SpaceX, but rather, government vs the private sector as a whole. So if SpaceX stagnates (or Google) then other

Right, but we're not comparing the government vs SpaceX, but rather, government vs the private sector as a whole. So if SpaceX stagnates (or Google) then other companies will eventually reach the point where they can outcompete them and things start moving again. But you can't usually outcompete the government regardless of how over-large or stagnant it becomes. That's the fundamental difference.

nicoburns 4y ago
You can't outcompete the government, but you could outcompete a publicly run business if it was setup as a competitive business with its own separate budget. In that case, the government acts quite like a private businesses investors/shareholders rather than running the business directly. Which seems like a best of both worlds in many cases.
- origin_path 4y ago
  Budget separate from what? The government's own budget? That's not possible, at least not in a western style democracy. If it's truly separate then it's not publicly run in any meaningful sense, and if that's not true then it's just a normal government department - it can't exist separate of government funding so in practice, the government controls it regardless of what the participants may claim. There's not really any such thing as the best of both worlds IMHO. What exact benefits are delivered by being run by the government? The best arguments are in cases of natural monopolies, but even there, there's benefits to just issuing licenses to sub-contractors (the result is a sort of quasi half private half public business of the type you suggest but nobody claims this model is one to use when not strictly necessary).
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    I wouldn't put USPS and Amtrak on any list of "best organizations" but they do have a somewhat different structure than, say, the Department of Agriculture. If I can play devil's advocate for a moment: there are some businesses (passenger rail, universal postal system) that are not attractive to any private entity unless they're heavily subsidized. Nonetheless, there's a public interest in providing them. As for SpaceX: the tech boom's brought us some people with billions at their disposal, and space exploration IS within reach for them. I don't think there was anyone in the 60s with the money and the inclination to do that.
    - origin_path 4y ago
      Some countries do have (theoretically) privatized passenger rail systems. It can be done without subsidies too, the UK nearly managed that for a brief period, but then decided to pay for the construction of huge new railways. If you aren't expanding the network though, subsidy free operation is possible. Of course we can argue they're not really private because in practice the government won't let them fail as a group. But in normal times at least, companies that want to exit the space can give up their license or be outcompeted for them. SpaceX exists because there's now lots of use cases for going into space. In the 60s indeed going into space wasn't so useful and it happened so early just because of the space race.
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        Yeah, the problem with passenger rail is, as you said, "the government won't let them fail as a group." In other words, they don't have skin in the game. It's also true that freight is a much more attractive business for a railroad, AFAICT. If you fuck up, you just compensate the owners; no one gets killed (most of the time). But the railroads don't have the option of just giving up passenger service, so they can make it so crappy that people leave
AlbertCory 4y ago
You can't outcompete the government?? Hello, Federal Express, UPS, and the Internet. USPS First Class mail volume is down substantially, because no one writes letters anymore. You're right that you can't drive them out of business, and they get a texpayer subsidy. I sold over 100 vinyl records via Discogs, and I used USPS because they have Media Mail, which is much cheaper than the private services.

nicoburns 4y ago

You can't outcompete the government, but you could outcompete a publicly run business if it was setup as a competitive business with its own separate budget. In that case, the government acts quite like a private businesses investors/shareholders rather than running the business directly. Which seems like a best of both worlds in many cases.

origin_path 4y ago
Budget separate from what? The government's own budget? That's not possible, at least not in a western style democracy. If it's truly separate then it's not publicly run in any meaningful sense, and if that's not true then it's just a normal government department - it can't exist separate of government funding so in practice, the government controls it regardless of what the participants may claim. There's not really any such thing as the best of both worlds IMHO. What exact benefits are delivered by being run by the government? The best arguments are in cases of natural monopolies, but even there, there's benefits to just issuing licenses to sub-contractors (the result is a sort of quasi half private half public business of the type you suggest but nobody claims this model is one to use when not strictly necessary).
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  I wouldn't put USPS and Amtrak on any list of "best organizations" but they do have a somewhat different structure than, say, the Department of Agriculture. If I can play devil's advocate for a moment: there are some businesses (passenger rail, universal postal system) that are not attractive to any private entity unless they're heavily subsidized. Nonetheless, there's a public interest in providing them. As for SpaceX: the tech boom's brought us some people with billions at their disposal, and space exploration IS within reach for them. I don't think there was anyone in the 60s with the money and the inclination to do that.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    Some countries do have (theoretically) privatized passenger rail systems. It can be done without subsidies too, the UK nearly managed that for a brief period, but then decided to pay for the construction of huge new railways. If you aren't expanding the network though, subsidy free operation is possible. Of course we can argue they're not really private because in practice the government won't let them fail as a group. But in normal times at least, companies that want to exit the space can give up their license or be outcompeted for them. SpaceX exists because there's now lots of use cases for going into space. In the 60s indeed going into space wasn't so useful and it happened so early just because of the space race.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      Yeah, the problem with passenger rail is, as you said, "the government won't let them fail as a group." In other words, they don't have skin in the game. It's also true that freight is a much more attractive business for a railroad, AFAICT. If you fuck up, you just compensate the owners; no one gets killed (most of the time). But the railroads don't have the option of just giving up passenger service, so they can make it so crappy that people leave

AlbertCory 4y ago

You can't outcompete the government?? Hello, Federal Express, UPS, and the Internet. USPS First Class mail volume is down substantially, because no one writes letters anymore. You're right that you can't drive them out of business, and they get a texpayer subsidy. I sold over 100 vinyl records via Discogs, and I used USPS because they have Media Mail, which is much cheaper than the private services.