4 ms·

It is impossible to know however, if large economies under different systems than capitalism would not have made for instance satellite phones a priority 40 yea

It is impossible to know however, if large economies under different systems than capitalism would not have made for instance satellite phones a priority 40 years ago rather than landlines and cell towers. Capitalism didn’t because it was more expensive but a central planner might well have because they thought it was cooler. So it’s kind of unreasonable to be adamant that only because of capitalism we have stuff in space.

Alupis 3y ago
Which centrally planned economy can/could afford to operate a constellation for phones? The initial Iridium constellation is estimated at around $5 Billion in 1998 money (~$9 Billion today), and it nearly killed the company in the process. That was just initial constellation expenses - monthly subscriptions are still cost prohibitive for majority of the population/general use, and ongoing maintenance is very expensive. The point is - it's not only cheaper to do land-based communications, but it's more reliable. There doesn't seem to be any reality where a centrally planned economy would take this sort of project on just for funsies...
- Swenrekcah 3y ago
  The Soviet Union operated all sorts of uneconomical undertakings because they felt they needed to. All that is needed is motivated labour that gets fed and housed. There is no magical law that you have to pay “market rates” so people can buy themselves gadgets. Now to be clear I am not advocating for the Soviet Union or central planning, far from it. I am only saying that there is no inherent reason why you’d need capitalism to fill space up with stuff. It is obviously a very powerful system but it is not the only possible system or necessarily the best. Again I very much like regulated and properly taxed market capitalist economies and want to keep living in one.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    The collapse of the Soviet Union was complex, but uneconomical undertakings did play a significant role... including the "Space Race". Which cements my point... commercialism is the only way these sorts of activities can exist.
    - Swenrekcah 3y ago
      We should just agree to disagree. Was ancient Egypt capitalist and the pyramids a commercial enterprise? Again I am not advocating for anything except that we don’t turn economic systems into religious beliefs.
      - Alupis 3y ago
        > we don’t turn economic systems into religious beliefs. Sure, I agree entirely with this statement. > Was ancient Egypt capitalist and the pyramids a commercial enterprise? Slave Labor is difficult to beat, eh? This is a strange way to make a point about government spending vs. commercialism. The overall point was the incentive for someone to make a profit is what motivates many if not all of the risky endeavors. If governments were solely in charge of launching rockets, then there would be no push by SpaceX to develop cheaper alternatives (and therefore win contracts, therefore make money). The government being solely in charge of any particular industry has rarely if ever resulted in innovations and ultimately a better service/product. The incentives are just not aligned under those circumstances.
        Swenrekcah 3y ago
        > Slave Labor is difficult to beat, eh? This is a strange way to make a point about government spending vs. commercialism. If we’re being brutally honest a lot of today’s economy depends on slave-like conditions for workers. Not necessarily in the “developed” world although people debate that, but definitely in poorer areas of the world. > The overall point was the incentive for someone to make a profit is what motivates many if not all of the risky endeavors. If governments were solely in charge of launching rockets, then there would be no push by SpaceX to develop cheaper alternatives (and therefore win contracts, therefore make money). I don’t entirely agree with that statement. Of course the profit motive is powerful and it does matter to people but that is largely because of the capitalist system itself. So if that is changed the profit motive ceases to be as strong. The case could be made that many of the greatest companies were founded by people motivated by strong vision and the desire to make an impact, much rather than profit motive. However in order to be able to do anything under capitalism they needed to focus on things that could be made profitable. And certainly taken too far the incentives of the system are not at all aligned with making ordinary people’s lives better, but rather that they keep buying or subscribing to your stuff. See social media motives and incentives for instance.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Alupis 3y ago

Which centrally planned economy can/could afford to operate a constellation for phones? The initial Iridium constellation is estimated at around $5 Billion in 1998 money (~$9 Billion today), and it nearly killed the company in the process. That was just initial constellation expenses - monthly subscriptions are still cost prohibitive for majority of the population/general use, and ongoing maintenance is very expensive. The point is - it's not only cheaper to do land-based communications, but it's more reliable. There doesn't seem to be any reality where a centrally planned economy would take this sort of project on just for funsies...

Swenrekcah 3y ago
The Soviet Union operated all sorts of uneconomical undertakings because they felt they needed to. All that is needed is motivated labour that gets fed and housed. There is no magical law that you have to pay “market rates” so people can buy themselves gadgets. Now to be clear I am not advocating for the Soviet Union or central planning, far from it. I am only saying that there is no inherent reason why you’d need capitalism to fill space up with stuff. It is obviously a very powerful system but it is not the only possible system or necessarily the best. Again I very much like regulated and properly taxed market capitalist economies and want to keep living in one.
- Alupis 3y ago
  The collapse of the Soviet Union was complex, but uneconomical undertakings did play a significant role... including the "Space Race". Which cements my point... commercialism is the only way these sorts of activities can exist.
  - Swenrekcah 3y ago
    We should just agree to disagree. Was ancient Egypt capitalist and the pyramids a commercial enterprise? Again I am not advocating for anything except that we don’t turn economic systems into religious beliefs.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      > we don’t turn economic systems into religious beliefs. Sure, I agree entirely with this statement. > Was ancient Egypt capitalist and the pyramids a commercial enterprise? Slave Labor is difficult to beat, eh? This is a strange way to make a point about government spending vs. commercialism. The overall point was the incentive for someone to make a profit is what motivates many if not all of the risky endeavors. If governments were solely in charge of launching rockets, then there would be no push by SpaceX to develop cheaper alternatives (and therefore win contracts, therefore make money). The government being solely in charge of any particular industry has rarely if ever resulted in innovations and ultimately a better service/product. The incentives are just not aligned under those circumstances.
      - Swenrekcah 3y ago
        > Slave Labor is difficult to beat, eh? This is a strange way to make a point about government spending vs. commercialism. If we’re being brutally honest a lot of today’s economy depends on slave-like conditions for workers. Not necessarily in the “developed” world although people debate that, but definitely in poorer areas of the world. > The overall point was the incentive for someone to make a profit is what motivates many if not all of the risky endeavors. If governments were solely in charge of launching rockets, then there would be no push by SpaceX to develop cheaper alternatives (and therefore win contracts, therefore make money). I don’t entirely agree with that statement. Of course the profit motive is powerful and it does matter to people but that is largely because of the capitalist system itself. So if that is changed the profit motive ceases to be as strong. The case could be made that many of the greatest companies were founded by people motivated by strong vision and the desire to make an impact, much rather than profit motive. However in order to be able to do anything under capitalism they needed to focus on things that could be made profitable. And certainly taken too far the incentives of the system are not at all aligned with making ordinary people’s lives better, but rather that they keep buying or subscribing to your stuff. See social media motives and incentives for instance.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]