3 ms·
> Theoretically, absolutely. Of course it gets messy in reality That’s like saying “theoretically you could get to space by flapping your wings”—you just need
by rayiner 3mo ago
> Theoretically, absolutely. Of course it gets messy in reality
That’s like saying “theoretically you could get to space by flapping your wings”—you just need to ignore inconvenient laws of physics. Economics describes forces of the real world, you cannot just wave them away.
- asdff 3mo agoThis has nothing to do with my point and I think you know that.
- rayiner 3mo agoYes it does. You’re trying to draw an artificial distinction between what’s possible “theoretically” and “in practice” that depends on removing basic economic understandings from “theory.”
- asdff 3mo agoYou equated nationalizing spacex to flapping ones wings to get to outer space...
- rayiner 3mo agoNo, I said that ignoring the second order effects of nationalizing SpaceX is like flapping your wings to get to outer space. SpaceX drove the cost of launch far below what NASA and its contractors had achieved. They wouldn't have bothered to invest in doing that if they were going to get nationalized. After you nationalize SpaceX, nobody is going to make that investment in the future. Those are the second-order effects. The point is that you have to account for those second order effects even in theory. The consequences that arise from those effects isn't some conflict between theory and practice. It's a defect in the theory itself, because the theory ignores relevant variables.