6 ms·

Hasn’t Spacex driven down the launch price for the government? A zero-margin government program isn’t necessarily cheaper for society. Much evidence shows that

by jmpman 2y ago

Hasn’t Spacex driven down the launch price for the government? A zero-margin government program isn’t necessarily cheaper for society. Much evidence shows that state owned competitions are significantly less efficient than the free market.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> Much evidence shows that state owned competitions are significantly less efficient than the free market. How is this possible? Profit, by definition, inefficient. Privatizing the production of rockets just penalizes american citizens with no benefit. Privatization necessarily makes less efficient markets, especially compared with a zero-margin competitor.
- TinkersW 2y ago
  Both government and private can be efficient or inefficient, it depends on the motive, I don't know why people insist on pretending one is always superior. In the case of SpaceX they are more efficient because NASA is intentionally hamstrung relative to them, this is done by congress because they treat NASA as a jobs program, it is intended to provide employment in as many states as possible, not produce efficient and affordable rockets. Congress dictates which rockets they are allowed to build, where they will build them, who will build them, and overrides them, forcing them to build nonsense rockets such as SLS.
  - Ajedi32 2y ago
    > Both government and private can be efficient or inefficient That's true. The difference is that inefficient private organizations go out of business, while inefficient government organizations tell congress it's because they "don't have enough funding" and get their budget increased.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > In the case of SpaceX they are more efficient because NASA is intentionally hamstrung relative to them, this is done by congress because they treat NASA as a jobs program NASA is a jobs program in order to hamstring it relatively to SpaceX? Can you cite some evidence?
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > How is this possible? Profit, by definition, inefficient Profit offloads risk from taxpayers by attracting private investment, rather than state investment. This means investors can lose all their money and taxpayers are totally insulated. Profit also means bad ideas are discarded. The space shuttle costing $1.5bn per flight in 2010 dollars[0] must surely at least give you some inkling that profit is not the only inefficiency, and definitely isn't the biggest one. People won't make a profit on things that are just boring and everything's been sufficiently worked out. This will be a race to the bottom regardless of whether something is privately owned or publically owned. However we want people to be able to be successful on things that benefit us and have a decent chance of going wrong. Otherwise you just lumber everyone with debt that needs paying back via taxes over a couple of generations, or you never try at all. [0] https://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-30-years.html https://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-...
- sbuttgereit 2y ago
  > How is this possible? Private companies, minus special government favors, have to deliver a product that customers want for a price that customers are willing to pay. If they are too inefficient at either identifying what those products are or at what price they should charge (both examples of inefficiency) there is no profit and eventually the funds run out and the business fails. Insofar as they can identify the right product and deliver it at a cost less than the price, they are efficient. In some ways, the profit is a measure of the efficiency of the enterprise. A state owned enterprise however has no such penalty against inefficiency. A government can redirect resources from more efficient and productive parts of the economy to projects that would otherwise fail under private enterprise. That redirection does not depend on the will (whim?) of consumers/customer: taxation and money minting allow for bypassing the typical constraints of voluntary consumer/customer wants, needs, and value-for-value trade. One can read this to mean that efficiency, under a system of state owned enterprises, is nice-to-have rather than a matter of survival.

by jmpman 2y ago

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

> Much evidence shows that state owned competitions are significantly less efficient than the free market. How is this possible? Profit, by definition, inefficient. Privatizing the production of rockets just penalizes american citizens with no benefit. Privatization necessarily makes less efficient markets, especially compared with a zero-margin competitor.

TinkersW 2y ago
Both government and private can be efficient or inefficient, it depends on the motive, I don't know why people insist on pretending one is always superior. In the case of SpaceX they are more efficient because NASA is intentionally hamstrung relative to them, this is done by congress because they treat NASA as a jobs program, it is intended to provide employment in as many states as possible, not produce efficient and affordable rockets. Congress dictates which rockets they are allowed to build, where they will build them, who will build them, and overrides them, forcing them to build nonsense rockets such as SLS.
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  > Both government and private can be efficient or inefficient That's true. The difference is that inefficient private organizations go out of business, while inefficient government organizations tell congress it's because they "don't have enough funding" and get their budget increased.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > In the case of SpaceX they are more efficient because NASA is intentionally hamstrung relative to them, this is done by congress because they treat NASA as a jobs program NASA is a jobs program in order to hamstring it relatively to SpaceX? Can you cite some evidence?
robertlagrant 2y ago
> How is this possible? Profit, by definition, inefficient Profit offloads risk from taxpayers by attracting private investment, rather than state investment. This means investors can lose all their money and taxpayers are totally insulated. Profit also means bad ideas are discarded. The space shuttle costing $1.5bn per flight in 2010 dollars[0] must surely at least give you some inkling that profit is not the only inefficiency, and definitely isn't the biggest one. People won't make a profit on things that are just boring and everything's been sufficiently worked out. This will be a race to the bottom regardless of whether something is privately owned or publically owned. However we want people to be able to be successful on things that benefit us and have a decent chance of going wrong. Otherwise you just lumber everyone with debt that needs paying back via taxes over a couple of generations, or you never try at all. [0] https://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-30-years.html https://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-...
sbuttgereit 2y ago
> How is this possible? Private companies, minus special government favors, have to deliver a product that customers want for a price that customers are willing to pay. If they are too inefficient at either identifying what those products are or at what price they should charge (both examples of inefficiency) there is no profit and eventually the funds run out and the business fails. Insofar as they can identify the right product and deliver it at a cost less than the price, they are efficient. In some ways, the profit is a measure of the efficiency of the enterprise. A state owned enterprise however has no such penalty against inefficiency. A government can redirect resources from more efficient and productive parts of the economy to projects that would otherwise fail under private enterprise. That redirection does not depend on the will (whim?) of consumers/customer: taxation and money minting allow for bypassing the typical constraints of voluntary consumer/customer wants, needs, and value-for-value trade. One can read this to mean that efficiency, under a system of state owned enterprises, is nice-to-have rather than a matter of survival.