Submitted by Master-Strawberry-26 t3_zz8cc6 in space
Reali5t t1_j2d5gag wrote
If SpaceX is good for anything it’s to prove that the private market can do everything cheaper and better than the government.
Tomon2 t1_j2d6uwy wrote
Not true. The health industry would like a word.
tanrgith t1_j2d7s6o wrote
To be fair, they said that private market can do everything cheaper and better
Doesn't mean that it always will. Especially if it's allowed to run free like the US health industry has been
DependentAd235 t1_j2d8q89 wrote
Healthcare is something of a natural monopoly. There’s only so many hospitals in an area and only so much time to get to them.
Also uh that whole not having a choice or die thing.
Cronus6 t1_j2e1pea wrote
Add to this the fact that everyone will get sick and die eventually regardless of the quality of care they receive.
Reali5t t1_j2d9kyy wrote
So you ignoring the largest healthcare provider in the country? Last I heard Medicare is covering only 100 million people and with being the largest healthcare provider also setting prices.
If you want an examples of how the health industry works when the government is not involved the you can look into Lasik, plastic surgeries and concierge medicine.
Tomon2 t1_j2d9wx0 wrote
I don't live in the same country as you, for starters.
It's been shown, copious numbers of times, just how bloated the medical insurance industry is in the US. Give me my government-funded universal healthcare any day.
Sure, the private industry has some highlights, but it's a mess you guys have over there.
Reali5t t1_j2ffm8t wrote
Congrats, I no longer live in the USA either, moved to government run healthcare a year and a half ago. The one time I went to the hospital the first question was “do you have additional private healthcare”.
The hospital stay was great, I needed an IV as they didn’t bother bringing me anything to drink and I was the lucky one as I did get a bed, others were sitting during their stay. This is an EU country.
Farage_Massage t1_j2e0ear wrote
You’re conflating the health insurance industry with the health industry.
The fact they are linked is the problem of course, but there’s nuance. Private enterprises run hospitals better than the government would be the argument.
TimelessGlassGallery t1_j2dgq0w wrote
It's definitely true when talking about a complete luxury we definitely don't need to live, or will be useful in our lifetime. Healthcare, infrastructure, and education? Not so much.
SenateLaunchScrubbed t1_j2do7gd wrote
On the contrary. You're probably thinking of the health industry in the USA. Guess what has ruined it? The government. It's in a state where it isn't fully government-run, but it isn't really private either. It's overregulated and with an insanely large government presence that messes everything up.
Butuguru t1_j2duv2d wrote
You have to be incredibly il-informed to think this. NASA literally funds SpaceX and helps them develop a lot of their tech. SpaceX just allows NASA to avoid the real hamstring: congressional requirements on budget. And don’t get to thinking it’s all NASA either, SpaceX has it own tech it also has pushed (of course from previous NASA considerations but notably bringing them to reality).
Outside of space, you really have to not understand what’s going on to think the gov doesn’t innovate. Nearly all advancements in the hard sciences come out of our national labs/nsf grants/nih/etc. Like it’s a modern marvel/gift we have these programs and people just don’t even know about them and say things like “government can’t innovate”. It’s just ridiculous.
Reali5t t1_j2fg81o wrote
NASA is one of their customers, but not their only customer, but hey if NASA can do it better and cheaper then go ahead.
fencethe900th t1_j2fn23v wrote
None of that applies to OP though. NASA is a customer, of course they fund SpaceX. But take a look at SLS to see the difference.
goodlittlesquid t1_j2dm94u wrote
If there has been no Space Race or NASA, SpaceX would not exist.
SenateLaunchScrubbed t1_j2domy8 wrote
Why would you think that?
Think of the closest example, airplanes. Airplanes exist. We didn't need a government-funded air race to get them. The very first airplane was entirely developed and funded by private capital.
The truth is, had there been no space race or NASA, we would've gotten something like SpaceX far, far sooner.
Government involvement didn't help, it stagnate space development for decades by keeping private endeavors out of it. It's still messing with them to this day.
zephyr_1779 t1_j2dxe0r wrote
Seems like the real problem is the way governments prioritize things.
mooseup t1_j2e5n1r wrote
Who purchased the first Wright flyer?
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/1909-wright-military-flyer/nasm_A19120001000
SenateLaunchScrubbed t1_j2e73tw wrote
The military was in NO way involved in development or funding. Years later, they saw the capability and showed up to get their hands on one. So what? Lots more where sold in the free market to regular citizens.
mooseup t1_j2ed1i9 wrote
If the military hadn’t purchased the Wright brothers plane they may as well have suffered the same fate as Burrell Cannon.
SenateLaunchScrubbed t1_j2ee4fq wrote
And that proves what? That's how the free market works. Some succeed, some don't. The Wright brothers made many mistakes when it came to business. The thing is, their failure wasn't the failure of the industry. Plenty of other manufacturers quickly showed up, and started selling planes like crazy. The wright brothers models where more expensive, and less well marketed.
cartoonist498 t1_j2e7p2n wrote
>The truth is, had there been no space race or NASA, we would've gotten something like SpaceX far, far sooner.
You're using an example where it was government funded efforts, namely through WW2, that advanced aviation in leaps and bounds and created the modern aviation industry.
At best it's uncertain whether government slows down progress. Government funding seems to still be the only way to pay for technology where the return is too far in the future and too risky to be worth the investment for private investors.
It's the government that's been the primary source of funding for fusion energy since the 1950s. Only recently, as late as last year, after all the government funded work and breakthroughs has private funding started equaling government funding.
Efforts to build a base on the Moon and send humans to Mars are still primarily government funded. Very few private investors seem to see a prospect of return on investing now.
Why would you say that government stagnates the private sector? If the private sector saw a profit in it, what's stopping them from funding, building and launching their own right now?
SenateLaunchScrubbed t1_j2e9jo4 wrote
>You're using an example where it was government funded efforts, namely through WW2, that advanced aviation in leaps and bounds and created the modern aviation industry.
Did it, though? It mostly achieved the opposite. It concentrated power unfairly on a few large companies, heavily regulated the market, and stalled progress for decades.
>At best it's uncertain whether government slows down progress. Government funding seems to still be the only way to pay for technology where the return is too far in the future and too risky to be worth the investment for private investors.
No, it isn't uncertain. Before governments started messing with the market so much in certain areas, those areas where entirely private. Even trains where initially private. Undersea cables. The telegraph.
>Why would you say that government stagnates the private sector? If the private sector saw a profit in it, what's stopping them from funding, building and launching their own right now?
This is the usual BS with government funding. The government enters an industry, heavily regulates it, then becomes the primary customer before the industry has a chance to develop. They arbitrarily and unfairly fund a few large contractors, to the point where it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to compete with them, because they are receiving fortunes in government money. And then you look at it and say "See? This wouldn't have happened without the government".
Think about SpaceX. Getting into the launch market, where monsters like ULA and its parents Boeing/Lockheed where so well established thanks to the government, getting billions, and all the launches? How about launching itself. Wanna build your own launchpad? Good luck with that, think about how hard BC was and still is to get going thanks to regulations. The government already had all the land that was good for launching, and they weren't sharing. They made SpaceX pay for Vandenberg, and then still didn't let them launch from there in the end. Add to that ITAR, and all the other stupid regulations.
The government never helps, all it ever does is get in the way.
cartoonist498 t1_j2ee0uf wrote
> stalled progress for decades.
You're just making this up. It's pretty much the consensus that World War 2 advanced human technology by leaps and bounds in a way that wouldn't have happened without it.
Unless you're arguing that the private sector would have increased advancement by the same amount, or even anywhere close to the same amount, the rest of what you're saying is built on a house of cards and what seems like a hatred of government funding that's unfair to bring up because it's not based on logic.
Space travel being difficult is the reason it took so long, not government bureaucracy. I'm not seeing your POV which is basically saying humans would already be on Mars if it wasn't for the government. In no reality would that have happened.
The same example you provided, SpaceX, disproves your point that an impenetrable oligopoly is always the end result because a brand new company has entered to challenge the big players in the space launch industry and successfully disrupted the market, and probably will become a leader in the industry by later this decade.
And all this progress built on the back of 70 years of government funding long before any private investor would touch it.
SenateLaunchScrubbed t1_j2eeji9 wrote
But that isn't a fair assessment. The world was in chaos during the entirety of WWI, and then afterwards with the great depression, and afterwards because of WWII. So it was a messy time, bad for business. Governments destroyed the world, and your argument is "but private industry wasn't doing so well back then".
cartoonist498 t1_j2efp6z wrote
That's why I said it's uncertain at best, at which point you replied that you're certain. Obviously we can't look into alternate realities so I don't know why you'd reply that you'd be certain.
I gave specific examples, fusion power and space travel, where government bootstrapped the research and development 50 years before any private investor would touch it. At any point during the last half century a private investor could have taken the reigns but that never happened.
"Governments destroyed the world"? It really feels like I'm getting into a political argument here with no clue what your politics are. Government and private industry aren't blood enemies in some epic battle of good vs evil, most of the time they work hand-in-hand to build a functioning society with pros and cons of each. The pros of government funding is that they'll fund advanced technology long before any private investor would.
SenateLaunchScrubbed t1_j2egaps wrote
>That's why I said it's uncertain at best, at which point you replied that you're certain. Obviously we can't look into alternate realities so I don't know why you'd reply that you'd be certain.
Because we have history. We've seen what happened previously to other developments the government didn't mess with, and the private market doesn't drop things like the government does. It doesn't find something new and then puts it on the backburner for years. The government does. All the WWII up to Apollo progress was then made up by decades of stagnation.
>I gave specific examples, fusion power
That has gone nowhere and will most likely never go anywhere.
>and space travel
Which was in the hands of private individuals before, until the government took over, and then they took care that nothing happened in it for decades, and only now we're rescuing it from the government's incompetent hands.
>"Governments destroyed the world"? It really feels like I'm getting into a political argument here with no clue what your politics are. Government and private industry aren't blood enemies in some epic battle of good vs evil, most of the time they work hand-in-hand to build a functioning society with pros and cons of each. The pros of government funding is that they'll fund advanced technology long before any private investor would.
The government is everyone's enemy. There are no pros to government funding other than cronyism and corruption.
cartoonist498 t1_j2ekjaq wrote
> decades of stagnation.
So do the moon landings themselves don't count as significant government progress?
Even after that, you'd really consider the launch of countless satellites into low earth orbit which revolutionized earthbound technology including communication and GPS for everyone on the planet, an international space station, countless probes to the furthest reaches of our solar system and probes entering interstellar space, and space telescopes that have revolutionized our understanding of the universe "stagnation"?
You're seriously in a space enthusiasts sub saying that there has been no significant progress in space technology for the last 50 years?
Have a good day.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments