You can hate the man and still respect his achievements.
Discussion
There is exactly zero achievement. Just endless elaborate excuses to get gullible people to support government giving him money.
lol reusable rockets is not an achievement?
Why aren't you paying for it willingly and forcing fiat users to subsidize you if it was such an amazing achievement? Also, that explosion didn't look very reusable today, did it? If only you were paying for it instead of everyone else on the world who doesn't give a shit!
Reusable rockets is a pretty big achievement
The space industry has stalled from 1969 until Elon Musk entered the space, and in the span of 15 years:
-Drastically lowered cost of kg to orbit by making reusable rocket a reality,
-Created a constellation of LEO to allow anyone to get internet access, basically everywhere in the world,
-Proposed a goal that transcends just getting awards and more fiat, by looking to send people to Mars, and eventually create an actual colony there.
Feel free to call his bullshit and his grifts, because he has many. But please be objective and recognize the few things he actually did right.
AFAIK, no government funded the Starship program ; and while the US government actually gave SpaceX money, even you should recognize the net gain created both for the government (and its taxpayers) AND the rest of companies, now able to afford to launch stuff in space at a much lower cost than before the SpaceX breakthrough.
Exactly zero accomplishment except the amazing feat of getting otherwise intelligent people to treat the obvious waste like it's an accomplishment. The satellite internet thing is a stupid grift we've been over before. The rockets aren't achieving anything except sell pipedreams
Wow. Just being dismissive about it all altogether doesn’t befit someone like you, usually advocating for the pursuit of the truth.
With so many bright people working at pure fiat jobs on Wall Street and other bullshit banks/hedge funds, like “portfolio managers”, “quant wiz”, “risk managers”… you really think it’s a waste of ressource to have some of them working to offer internet access globally, especially into territories where ground infrastructure is 30 years behind, and to let small non government-affiliated companies send stuff in space at an “affordable” cost ?
You hate Elon, no problem, just dunk on him for his dogecoin bullshit, his “Tesla FSD next year”, or Twitter “free speech costs $8”…
If you don’t even like space exploration or reusable rockets, no problem too, just ignore it, or dunk on companies like Virgin Galactic or Blue Origin that (so far) have just been glorified thrill machines for billionaires.
But please, even if you don’t like the fact SpaceX was kickstarted in part by government subsidies, at least be objective regarding obvious and measurable advancements in space and internet technology, that were achieved though proof of work.
I’m also disappointed by Saife’s willful ignorance here
Well said. Nuclear fission technology was developed with staggering levels of government support. Was that also deplorable? #[2] I think you have blinders on in regards to this topic.
"kickstarted in part by government subsidies" How about billions in continuously growing government contracts that are funded by theft and coercion? If those "advances" can only be funded by coercion, they are obviously not beneficial for humanity as a whole and are ultimately just malinvestments which actually are net negative for the world.
What you say does not address my point in any way.
The reality is that while most advances funded by taxation, which you call coercion and theft, are not beneficial for humanity, a few of these programs yield net benefits for taxpayers, and sometimes humanity.
Both can be true:
-the majority of government funded programs are malinvestments,
-a few government funded programs are beneficial for the taxpayers and sometimes humanity.
And I believe SpaceX is one of the few falling in that category.
If you don’t agree, please at least make a solid case about why SpaceX democratizing cheap launches in space for non-government companies + Starlink making internet access possible anywhere in the world + the non-government funded Starship program are all “net negative” for taxpayers and humanity.
Any of the small number of actually useful advances that were by chance funded through government theft and coercion would have been made anyway in a free market if they are indeed beneficial. In fact, they would probably be made earlier and cheaper if not for continuous government interventions in the first place. At the end of the day, all innovations are made in spite of government action, not due to it.
“cheap launches” are only cheap because of all the government funding provided beforehand. If you account for it won’t be so cheap anymore. Also, you might want to look up what % of SpaceX launches are paid for by private companies. Hint: it’s minuscule, and those private companies themselves are mostly private only in name as SpaceX is itself. As of October 2022, out of 38 launches listed in their active launch manifest 33 were paid by government entities, others were SpaceX own launches.
As for Starlink, if it was indeed a feasible idea it would be funded by private funds regardless. But something tells me it isn’t and other land based communication technologies are way more efficient.
To sum up - all those fiat funded government directed investments are distorting free markets by allocating resources inefficiently and thus making it harder for the actually useful innovations to emerge. Which is a net negative for humanity.
*“Any of the small number of actually useful advances that were by chance funded through government theft and coercion would have been made anyway in a free market if they are indeed beneficial. In fact, they would probably be made earlier and cheaper if not for continuous government interventions in the first place.”*
Way to generalize and make bold claims without advancing a sliver of proof.
**Maybe** SpaceX breakthroughs would have been made “earlier and cheaper” without the government interventions. But how do you prove it?
The reality is that space launch advancements were stalling for over 30 years before SpaceX was created. NASA and government contractors were still receiving funding, but nothing happened. SpaceX received government funding, too, and something good happened. This is a fact. What you say cannot be proven, so it’s irrelevant.
*“cheap launches” are only cheap because of all the government funding provided beforehand. If you account for it won’t be so cheap anymore.**
You’re saying SpaceX launches wouldn’t be cheap without government funding. So let’s imagine you remove all funding from the equation (because its competitors also get government funding), it would still the cheapest option just because of the law of physics and economics. When you recover your boosters after each launch, it will cost less to launch again, all else equal.
*Also, you might want to look up what % of SpaceX launches are paid for by private companies. Hint: it’s minuscule, and those private companies themselves are mostly private only in name as SpaceX is itself. As of October 2022, out of 38 launches listed in their active launch manifest 33 were paid by government entities, others were SpaceX own launches.*
I don’t know what line of reasoning you are using when you say SpaceX and other private companies are “only private in name”. I don’t think Elon Musk is a government agent, and I don’t think these other companies should be, either.
As for the launches breakdown, SpaceX serve governments and private entities. We can agree on the fact that satellites launches are used a lot by government agencies (for war and espionnage which we don’t necessarily want, but also for science and everyday’s comfort like weather, GPS…). I think that there would be more opportunities to create private companies looking to launch stuff in space in a free market.
*As for Starlink, if it was indeed a feasible idea it would be funded by private funds regardless. But something tells me it isn’t and other land based communication technologies are way more efficient.*
Again, if “something tells you it isn’t”, please ask something to advance proofs.
AFAIK SpaceX is selling Starlink, mostly to non government entities, so there must be demand for it.
*To sum up - all those fiat funded government directed investments are distorting free markets by allocating resources inefficiently and thus making it harder for the actually useful innovations to emerge. Which is a net negative for humanity.*
On that we agree. But if I may, I assume that if you’re writing long forms to discuss a matter, you must be trying to convince someone else that your ideas are “superior” to his/hers.
I don’t think framing issues in black and white, advancing arguments without proofs, and considering everything that the government touched “bad” or “would have been made faster, cheaper and better” will get you much attention or credit outside of the hardcore libertarian crowds.
And I don’t think dissing one of a few “lucky draw” from government funding is a good idea either, as they are way more obvious targets for that.
If you can get your point across by picking the lower hanging fruits, like fiat healthcare, fiat food, etc… Once people realize that, they’ll also realize that the government could be shrinked a bit first and how that would lead to better outcomes for them… and after seeing it then they would want to shrink it even more until we reach the best outcome.
> Way to generalize and make bold claims without advancing a silver of proof.
I am just stating logic - any interference in the free markets results in all kinds of disbalances and inefficiencies which in turn stifles real innovations. If someone has to provide proof, it is people who claim that state interventions somehow boost such a complex and mostly randomly happening phenomena as innovations in any way, shape or form.
> Maybe SpaceX breakthroughs would have been made earlier and cheaper without the government interventions.
Most probably they would have not been made at all, because 99% of space “advancements” are completely useless in real day to day life of people on earth and are simply a waste and misallocation of scarce resources.
> SpaceX received government funding, and something good happened.
This is an extremely biased personal opinion. The fact is that good happened only to the people who directly benefited from the government theft and pocketed a lot of stolen money. In all other practical aspects only bad happened - money was stolen from individuals and used to buy up resources that would otherwise be available for real innovators and useful businesses that actually make peoples lives better.
> I don’t know what line of reasoning you are using when you say SpaceX and other private companies are “only private in name”.
I am using logic and just being completely honest with myself. SpaceX received billions in subsidies, and it is a business that completely relies on continuously flowing billions from government contracts. For all practical purposes it is a government funded and run business.
> AFAIK SpaceX is selling Starlink, mostly to non government entities, so there must be demand for it.
AFAIK SpaceX is a highly subsidised company, only really living off government contracts, selling Starlink equipment at a loss. Remove all of that and see how much the real costs would be and then see if there is still any demand left for it. I highly doubt it.
> I assume that if you’re writing long forms to discuss a matter, you must be trying to convince someone else that your ideas are “superior” to his/hers.
To be honest, I don’t really care if you or anyone else I correspond with is going to change their opinions. For me, it is more about putting the truth out there for people to see, and create some content for my followers to consume as well. Plus this kind of discussions also bring some (even if little) visibility and help new people to discover my account.
> I don’t think dissing one of a few “lucky draw” from government funding is a good idea either, there are way more obvious targets for that… like fiat healthcare, fiat food, etc.
First, I genuinely don’t think that SpaceX and Starlink are in any way a “lucky draw”. To me it’s just a waste of stolen resources on something that is largely useless to the humanity as a whole and by its nature is net negative as I explained before. Second, don’t worry, I will gladly dunk on other government fuelled destructive industries such as the ones you mentioned and others on top. It is just that I saw this particular discussion happening and decided to chime in with my 2 cents of truth and create a little bit of content for my followers, as I already mentioned before.
I completely support you on shrinking government 👍 Ideally, it should be shrunk until it disappears completely into the void.
What's the problem with starlink?
Once you realize Mars is on Devon island the grift becomes the achievement in itself.