4 ms·

very cool; thanks for the links. and that would be absolutely amazing; though in some ways (and not to discount musk’s undertaking at all) i feel it speaks mor

very cool; thanks for the links. and that would be absolutely amazing; though in some ways (and not to discount musk’s undertaking at all) i feel it speaks more so to a failure of governments (generally speaking) in investing to drive technological advance. it should be the public sector that leads in these types of endeavors. one of the most important functions of a state is its ability and willingness to invest in projects that would be otherwise unprofitable or far too long-term for any rational player in the private sector to take-on. these investments, while maybe unprofitable to a single entity, are what lay the foundation for significant productivity and standard of living gains down-the-line (which, in-turn, spur many future profitable companies). it’s how everything from highways spanning a continent and parks in the middle of crowded cities to the internet and atomic energy get developed; and it's so crucial to society.. it’s really quite sad to see this important economic function of government neglected, particularly in the us where its proven so successful in generating wealth and societal good time-and-time again.. i mean would we have microsoft and apple around if it wasn’t for the development of the internet? (and google certainly wouldn’t exist). it’s also sad that the great focus that the nation apparently (long before i came to be) had in driving technological advance has stalled, and such investments have become issues of budgets and ‘big government’ (which i am not a fan of at all by the way). if governments are going to run ridiculous budget deficits anyways (even in years of economic growth) then there should at least be something to show for it at some point; that doesn’t seem to be the case these days.. fortunately there are irrational players in the private sector, like elon musk, who are able to fill the voids. unfortunately though, if (and most likely when) such endeavors prove unprofitable in the long-run, little may show for it.. you’d think more people would be interested (and economically incentivized) to have a government that covers the expensive research and development costs associated with spearheading technologies which they can one-day build-off of (and in incredibly profitable ways), but i guess economic self-preservation (and therefore political pressure) prevail over advance. with all that said, i really do hope he succeeds. (also, off topic, but i really wish i could afford a model s right now!)

larrydag 14y ago
While I agree the state can provide financing it is the private sector that is going to innovate. When you look at the astonishing transportation and exploration break-throughs of humanity it was mostly the private individual (Columbus, Howard Hughs, Lockheed) with the exception of space. Why is that so? Risk. Astronauts from NASA have been saying for years that the cost to launch increased so much because of the aversion of risk. That is now changing. Space is becoming an endeavor of the private sector and its even on pace of becoming profitable (see Planetary Resources). While NASA has definitely proven humanity can still explore I believe it will be the private sector that will truly set the pace for human break-throughs.
- wtracy 14y ago
  Christopher Columbus had financial backing by the Spanish crown.
  - vermontdevil 14y ago
    Yes but he took on all the risk himself. Even had private investors. So basically the crown didn't have much to lose and a lot to gain.
greedo 14y ago
Can't say I agree that funding this type of endeavor is "one of the most important functions of a state is its ability and willingness to invest in projects that would be otherwise unprofitable or far too long-term for any rational player in the private sector to take-on." Government does many things marginally better than the private sector, and many things poorly. For example, the Pyramids are a stunning achievement that couldn't have been completed without using government. However, I don't see them as being particularly helpful today. Governments don't need to have "economic functions" other than protecting property rights, and maintaining a sound currency.
- simba-hiiipower 14y ago
  not wanting to get into a philosophical debate here, but even as someone who generally argues for smaller government, i disagree.. people generally discount the significant economic advantages (to all in an economy) that government investments provide; in most cases, investments in transformative projects which otherwise would not have occurred were it up to the private-sector alone. take development of the us interstate system as an example.. the costs involved in building-out the network are estimated to have been in excess of $425 billion [1] and the original phase took over 35 years to complete as planned; no rational, profit-seeking, company would ever undertake such a project. the economics just don’t make much sense. and even if the private sector was able to come-up with a similarly adequate solution (potentially networks of small/regional players monetizing usage through tolls), the cost to society both in actual usage charges (sufficient to generate profits for the firms) and in lack of a consistent, expandable, and reliable network that so many people and businesses depend on would likely be far in excess of the $425 billion cost. the fact that the us built-up solid infrastructure (both physical and in terms of networks and connectivity systems) early on (relative to many other nations) provided domestic companies a major competitive advantage over less/later-developed countries; its freed-up physical ($) and intellectual capital towards other endeavors and was a key part of why, collectively, more significant commercialized innovations over the past few decades (by private companies) have come from the us. and beyond the economic savings from the outcome of the investment itself (i.e. a system facilitating a reliable, consistent, and relatively inexpensive means of transportation), the actual exercise in carrying it through also yields a lot of ancillary economic benefits. new construction methods may be developed, equipment manufacturers may grow in scale or scope, and a lot of people (and companies) are employed (and contracted) in carrying-it through (gaining new skills/experience). beyond that, there is all the subsequent innovation and opportunity to develop profitable businesses that are created once a major transformational technology is introduced. think of the advantages ups (and later fedex) would have in utilizing the interstate system to grow in scale relative to competitors in countries that lacked similar systems (now lookup who are the leaders in that industry). the benefits are even clearer when you look at all the technology and defense companies that have benefited from foundations laid-out by, or innovations developed during, large government-funded projects such as the internet or during the space race.. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

larrydag 14y ago

While I agree the state can provide financing it is the private sector that is going to innovate. When you look at the astonishing transportation and exploration break-throughs of humanity it was mostly the private individual (Columbus, Howard Hughs, Lockheed) with the exception of space. Why is that so? Risk. Astronauts from NASA have been saying for years that the cost to launch increased so much because of the aversion of risk. That is now changing. Space is becoming an endeavor of the private sector and its even on pace of becoming profitable (see Planetary Resources). While NASA has definitely proven humanity can still explore I believe it will be the private sector that will truly set the pace for human break-throughs.

wtracy 14y ago
Christopher Columbus had financial backing by the Spanish crown.
- vermontdevil 14y ago
  Yes but he took on all the risk himself. Even had private investors. So basically the crown didn't have much to lose and a lot to gain.

greedo 14y ago

Can't say I agree that funding this type of endeavor is "one of the most important functions of a state is its ability and willingness to invest in projects that would be otherwise unprofitable or far too long-term for any rational player in the private sector to take-on." Government does many things marginally better than the private sector, and many things poorly. For example, the Pyramids are a stunning achievement that couldn't have been completed without using government. However, I don't see them as being particularly helpful today. Governments don't need to have "economic functions" other than protecting property rights, and maintaining a sound currency.

simba-hiiipower 14y ago
not wanting to get into a philosophical debate here, but even as someone who generally argues for smaller government, i disagree.. people generally discount the significant economic advantages (to all in an economy) that government investments provide; in most cases, investments in transformative projects which otherwise would not have occurred were it up to the private-sector alone. take development of the us interstate system as an example.. the costs involved in building-out the network are estimated to have been in excess of $425 billion [1] and the original phase took over 35 years to complete as planned; no rational, profit-seeking, company would ever undertake such a project. the economics just don’t make much sense. and even if the private sector was able to come-up with a similarly adequate solution (potentially networks of small/regional players monetizing usage through tolls), the cost to society both in actual usage charges (sufficient to generate profits for the firms) and in lack of a consistent, expandable, and reliable network that so many people and businesses depend on would likely be far in excess of the $425 billion cost. the fact that the us built-up solid infrastructure (both physical and in terms of networks and connectivity systems) early on (relative to many other nations) provided domestic companies a major competitive advantage over less/later-developed countries; its freed-up physical ($) and intellectual capital towards other endeavors and was a key part of why, collectively, more significant commercialized innovations over the past few decades (by private companies) have come from the us. and beyond the economic savings from the outcome of the investment itself (i.e. a system facilitating a reliable, consistent, and relatively inexpensive means of transportation), the actual exercise in carrying it through also yields a lot of ancillary economic benefits. new construction methods may be developed, equipment manufacturers may grow in scale or scope, and a lot of people (and companies) are employed (and contracted) in carrying-it through (gaining new skills/experience). beyond that, there is all the subsequent innovation and opportunity to develop profitable businesses that are created once a major transformational technology is introduced. think of the advantages ups (and later fedex) would have in utilizing the interstate system to grow in scale relative to competitors in countries that lacked similar systems (now lookup who are the leaders in that industry). the benefits are even clearer when you look at all the technology and defense companies that have benefited from foundations laid-out by, or innovations developed during, large government-funded projects such as the internet or during the space race.. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System