3 ms·
Maybe, but what's the point in not generating 7 dollars of economic activity for every dollar spent, inspiring millions, and bootstrapping the process? If it w
by codyb 3y ago
Maybe, but what's the point in not generating 7 dollars of economic activity for every dollar spent, inspiring millions, and bootstrapping the process?
If it was "basically a photo-op" it wouldn't have generated so much economic activity in the long run, even if perhaps it wasn't the most cost effective way to get there (in some eyes)?
- jdasdf 3y ago> Maybe, but what's the point in not generating 7 dollars of economic activity for every dollar spent, inspiring millions, and bootstrapping the process? Because not spending that dollar on putting a guy on the moon could have generated 20 dollars elsewhere.
- mcguire 3y agoIt could have, yes. Would it? This is why historians are leery of counter-factuals; unless you have very strong evidence that it would have happened, you have nothing but a "could have" hypothesis.
- codyb 3y agoYea, seems pretty loose to assume those dollars would have generated three times the economic impact of the space program if they'd been left in individuals hands. Companies certainly innovate, but the government innovates a _lot_ (primarily through research grants which are eventually developed into products by entrepreneurs as far as I can tell, also the military).
- shtopointo 3y ago$7 for each $1 is marketing math. Someone is being very generous in attributing too much economic activity to the space program.
- codyb 3y agoI mean, even if it was 2 for 1... or 1 for 1... why not do it? Pretty neat to go to the moon.