3 ms·

Solve two birds with one stone and nationalize SpaceX.

by snotrockets 2y ago

DiggyJohnson 2y ago
How would that accomplish either of the two?
- snotrockets 2y ago
  You are no longer dependent on the whims of a private company and its shareholders, but bring in the regulatory regime of public service. Also reduce costs as unlike private enterprise, public service need not provide fiscal revenues.
  - boxed 2y ago
    That was total nonsense. Don't shoot the golden goose.
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    SpaceX isn't publicly traded, it already has no obligation to maximize profits. It is free to follow whichever goals Musk and the SpaceX investors set for the company. So far those goals mostly involve building cash cows in service of financing even higher goals. I'm not sure if that goal is still Mars, but whatever it is they are reinvesting everything and regularly take in more investments
    - snotrockets 2y ago
      A company is beholden to its shareholders. That the shareholder wants to make profits and funnel them to some other goal, is the same for non shareholders if they’d hoard that money like a dragon. If it’s for public benefit, than let the public decide what the benefit be.
      - bitbangboom 2y ago
        I disagree with this line of thought. Spacex took a big risk to get to where they are, just because they happen to have pulled it off and it provides some “public benefit” doesn’t mean it should just be taken from them. And if it’s buy out that still doesn’t solve the problem because people value things completely differently. This stifles innovation and the willingness to take on risk for a reward down the road. If you actually pull it off and reach some level of “public benefit” it could just be taken from you. Is Amazons same day delivery of medications a “public benefit”?
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    hm this seems to lack context SpaceX has reduced costs of launching into space far greater than NASA, an already public service, has achieved. NASA's deeply inefficient costs have directly contributed to its budget being slashed and the disinterest in Congress for funding it further, it is subject to the political whims of being a public service and exacerbated by its uncompetitive spending pattern to achieve anything extraterrestrial. The direction that the US Government is going is one to incentivize the private sector - yes, with its shareholders and all the trappings of capitalism - but with competition between multiple private enterprises. So far, the space industry is failing to have competition between multiple private enterprises, just because Boeing has poor quality control. But additional entrants into this sector are expected.

Solve two birds with one stone and nationalize SpaceX.

DiggyJohnson 2y ago

How would that accomplish either of the two?

snotrockets 2y ago
You are no longer dependent on the whims of a private company and its shareholders, but bring in the regulatory regime of public service. Also reduce costs as unlike private enterprise, public service need not provide fiscal revenues.
- boxed 2y ago
  That was total nonsense. Don't shoot the golden goose.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  SpaceX isn't publicly traded, it already has no obligation to maximize profits. It is free to follow whichever goals Musk and the SpaceX investors set for the company. So far those goals mostly involve building cash cows in service of financing even higher goals. I'm not sure if that goal is still Mars, but whatever it is they are reinvesting everything and regularly take in more investments
  - snotrockets 2y ago
    A company is beholden to its shareholders. That the shareholder wants to make profits and funnel them to some other goal, is the same for non shareholders if they’d hoard that money like a dragon. If it’s for public benefit, than let the public decide what the benefit be.
    - bitbangboom 2y ago
      I disagree with this line of thought. Spacex took a big risk to get to where they are, just because they happen to have pulled it off and it provides some “public benefit” doesn’t mean it should just be taken from them. And if it’s buy out that still doesn’t solve the problem because people value things completely differently. This stifles innovation and the willingness to take on risk for a reward down the road. If you actually pull it off and reach some level of “public benefit” it could just be taken from you. Is Amazons same day delivery of medications a “public benefit”?
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  hm this seems to lack context SpaceX has reduced costs of launching into space far greater than NASA, an already public service, has achieved. NASA's deeply inefficient costs have directly contributed to its budget being slashed and the disinterest in Congress for funding it further, it is subject to the political whims of being a public service and exacerbated by its uncompetitive spending pattern to achieve anything extraterrestrial. The direction that the US Government is going is one to incentivize the private sector - yes, with its shareholders and all the trappings of capitalism - but with competition between multiple private enterprises. So far, the space industry is failing to have competition between multiple private enterprises, just because Boeing has poor quality control. But additional entrants into this sector are expected.