Billionaires Blast off

[Loren Pechtel]

Government rocket programs are basically pork these days.

Constellation: Cancelled
Orion: Cancelled
Space Launch System: It might get off the ground but it's never going to fly much as it's 10x the price per kg of the Super-Heavy.

The choice is whether to allow a handful of neo-aristocratic individuals to decide whether and how society should go into space; or whether to make those decisions democratically.

The decision made "democratically" is to waste the money on pork--the worst possible outcome.

"Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried" - Winston Churchill

When your democracy is broken, the solution is to fix it, not to just replace it with an aristocracy.

Dictators, autocrats, and aristocrats are quite capable of doing stuff that their people would have wanted, had they been asked. But that doesn't make dictatorship, autocracy, or aristocracy better than democracy.

You're letting perfect be the enemy of good.

Yes, we should fix our democracy, but that's not going to be one bit easy. Meanwhile we should tilt at the windmill of fixing politics while Rome burns?

 

[Swammerdami]

BOTH sides of this "debate" are espousing positions that are much too extreme — and therefore wrong. Perhaps y'all should consult eye doctors to find out why you cannot perceive shades of gray.

At this point, the thread may be useless for anything but a game: "Find the wrongest sentence in this thread." Here's my nomination:

It is not. The governments command a lot more money, not to mention power, than even the richest of billionaires. Even an idiot freshman congresswoman like AOC is orders of magnitude more powerful than Bezos et al.

The right-wing's obsession with AOC is laughable. (Fingers getting tired? How could you pass up the opportunity to mention she was a bartender? ) She was awarded her B.A. cum laude, so "idiot" is rather an exaggeration. There are Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who appear to be much stupider than AOC. A point in favor of the right, I guess, is that many of the stupidest-seeming GOP Congresscritters are only pretending to believe their stupidest ideas.

But what is startling — and completely backwards — is the idea that AOC has "orders of magnitude" more power than a billionaire. Bezos and the progressives dueled recently in a quest to unionize a Bezos workplace. Did AOC win that vote? By "orders of magnitude"?

Charles Koch gets away with much pollution due to his purchased political influence. Has AOC reduced that at all?

AOC does indeed have much political power; how much is moot. I wish she were as powerful as a billionaire. But the "orders of magnitude" turns what might have been an interesting discussion into slapstick comedy. For your next laugh, will you slip on a banana peel?

 

[Jayjay]

The US federal budget is $2.45 trillion. If we were to assume, for the sake of the argument, that this money is controlled by the congress, and each congressperson (including senators), controls an equal amount of it, that's about $8 billion per year. Of course a member of congress doesn't have an equal power to a senator, and I completely ignored the presidency, but let's entertain the idea to get a rough estimate of the upper limit of power that a political actor like AOC might have.

Jeff Bezos makes that in a month. So even by the most outlandish estimate of Ocasio-Cortez's power converted to US dollars, she'd still be at least an order of magnitude below Bezos.

 

[DBT]

"Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried" - Winston Churchill

When your democracy is broken, the solution is to fix it, not to just replace it with an aristocracy.

Dictators, autocrats, and aristocrats are quite capable of doing stuff that their people would have wanted, had they been asked. But that doesn't make dictatorship, autocracy, or aristocracy better than democracy.

You're letting perfect be the enemy of good.

Yes, we should fix our democracy, but that's not going to be one bit easy. Meanwhile we should tilt at the windmill of fixing politics while Rome burns?

How is an aristocracy of the super rich a good thing for society?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The US federal budget is $2.45 trillion. If we were to assume, for the sake of the argument, that this money is controlled by the congress, and each congressperson (including senators), controls an equal amount of it, that's about $8 billion per year. Of course a member of congress doesn't have an equal power to a senator, and I completely ignored the presidency, but let's entertain the idea to get a rough estimate of the upper limit of power that a political actor like AOC might have.

Jeff Bezos makes that in a month. So even by the most outlandish estimate of Ocasio-Cortez's power converted to US dollars, she'd still be at least an order of magnitude below Bezos.

You've got a big math problem. You're looking at what he "made" in one year, as measured from the dip caused by the pandemic shock as if it's a general pattern.

"Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried" - Winston Churchill

When your democracy is broken, the solution is to fix it, not to just replace it with an aristocracy.

Dictators, autocrats, and aristocrats are quite capable of doing stuff that their people would have wanted, had they been asked. But that doesn't make dictatorship, autocracy, or aristocracy better than democracy.

You're letting perfect be the enemy of good.

Yes, we should fix our democracy, but that's not going to be one bit easy. Meanwhile we should tilt at the windmill of fixing politics while Rome burns?

How is an aristocracy of the super rich a good thing for society?

Of course you try to fix it. I'm just saying that you don't forego everything else while trying to do so.

Furthermore, there are things private enterprise can do far better than government can--SpaceX cares far more about what works than what is good from a PR standpoint. They expect to crash a lot of test vehicles, if the government tried their approach there would have been congressional hearings on how bad they were before Starship made it's first successful hop.

 

[DBT]

The point was: is there any reason why workers can't get a better share of the wealth they help to produce?

 

[Elixir]

You're looking at what he "made" in one year

OK then - "is making". Feel better?

Of course you try to fix it. I'm just saying that you don't forego everything else while trying to do so.

Foregoing a few tens of billions of dollars in the pockets of people making hundreds of billions, doesn't seem like a terrible sacrifice.

Furthermore, there are things private enterprise can do far better than government can--SpaceX cares far more about what works than what is good from a PR standpoint.

WUT? What "works" IS their PR standpoint.
Again, I think it's useful to point out that the ONLY novel accomplishment of any of these zillionaires' "great innovation" is a re-usable booster rocket.
None of them has equaled - let alone surpassed - what the private sector accomplished in 2004. Meanwhile, NASA has landed numerous Mars rovers, intercepted a comet, landed on an asteroid, flown by Saturn's moons, visited Pluto... all completely new and vital research vehicles from which those billionaires will profit as soon as we, the taxpayers, have paid enough to pave their way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

OK then - "is making". Feel better?

I was using quotes because it's cherry-picked data. They are counting from the dip caused by the pandemic shock, thus ignoring the losses.

Foregoing a few tens of billions of dollars in the pockets of people making hundreds of billions, doesn't seem like a terrible sacrifice.

Furthermore, there are things private enterprise can do far better than government can--SpaceX cares far more about what works than what is good from a PR standpoint.

WUT? What "works" IS their PR standpoint.
Again, I think it's useful to point out that the ONLY novel accomplishment of any of these zillionaires' "great innovation" is a re-usable booster rocket.
None of them has equaled - let alone surpassed - what the private sector accomplished in 2004. Meanwhile, NASA has landed numerous Mars rovers, intercepted a comet, landed on an asteroid, flown by Saturn's moons, visited Pluto... all completely new and vital research vehicles from which those billionaires will profit as soon as we, the taxpayers, have paid enough to pave their way.

The Super Heavy is far more important than all of those missions put together.

 

[DBT]

Subsidized by Government money, ie, the taxpayer.

 

[Elixir]

I was using quotes because it's cherry-picked data. They are counting from the dip caused by the pandemic shock, thus ignoring the losses.

Some (most) people have barely recovered from that "dip" at all, if you don't count from the bottom.

Foregoing a few tens of billions of dollars in the pockets of people making hundreds of billions, doesn't seem like a terrible sacrifice.



WUT? What "works" IS their PR standpoint.
Again, I think it's useful to point out that the ONLY novel accomplishment of any of these zillionaires' "great innovation" is a re-usable booster rocket.
None of them has equaled - let alone surpassed - what the private sector accomplished in 2004. Meanwhile, NASA has landed numerous Mars rovers, intercepted a comet, landed on an asteroid, flown by Saturn's moons, visited Pluto... all completely new and vital research vehicles from which those billionaires will profit as soon as we, the taxpayers, have paid enough to pave their way.

The Super Heavy is far more important than all of those missions put together.

Only because it is intended to be big, and largely reusable, as I said (bolded above)...
What has Super Heavy produced so far? Nothing. The demo of the feasibility - proof of concept if you will - has been visually impressive. But so was Trump's campaign. How many of those oohing and aaahing over the latest launch would even recognize the name Biddle? To whom will the benefits accrue if/when the huge taxpayer investment starts paying off?

Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies
Commercial space companies have received $7.2 billion in government investment since 2000
Early public money can provide a big boost for private space businesses

(public money could lend a yuuuuge boost to my private lifestyle too)

To be clear, I do think that a public/private partnership could be viable and beneficial to both parties but It looks heavily tilted toward the benefit of the private party.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some (most) people have barely recovered from that "dip" at all, if you don't count from the bottom.

False Dow Jones average, 5 years:



See that spot in 2020 where it dropped way down? That's where they are measuring from. Same crap the global warming deniers play.

The Super Heavy is far more important than all of those missions put together.

Only because it is intended to be big, and largely reusable, as I said (bolded above)...
What has Super Heavy produced so far? Nothing. The demo of the feasibility - proof of concept if you will - has been visually impressive. But so was Trump's campaign. How many of those oohing and aaahing over the latest launch would even recognize the name Biddle? To whom will the benefits accrue if/when the huge taxpayer investment starts paying off?

I would be very surprised if it doesn't work. Starship has already flown and landed. They're used to landing the Falcon boosters, this is just the same thing done bigger. The biggest cost to spaceflight is throwing away the hardware for every flight--and the Super Heavy throws away nothing. That will revolutionize access to space.

Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies
Commercial space companies have received $7.2 billion in government investment since 2000
Early public money can provide a big boost for private space businesses

(public money could lend a yuuuuge boost to my private lifestyle too)

To be clear, I do think that a public/private partnership could be viable and beneficial to both parties but It looks heavily tilted toward the benefit of the private party.

Of course SpaceX has gotten a ton of government money--they've launched a whole bunch of government payloads!

 

[bilby]

One of the biggest problems in the world today is that lots of people genuinely think that economic indices like the DJIA are indicative of the economic experience of most people.

Most people don't own shares, other than through pension and superannuation systems that they will not access until retirement. Their daily lives are only distantly related to the state of the share market, and typically that relationship is statistical - the Dow falls, and 1 in 10 loses his job and goes from OK to destitute, while 9 out of ten see no change at all. Recovery implies no change for the 90% too. Maybe that one guy gets his job back (unless it's been long enough that he is no longer presentable enough to do so; Living in your car or under a freeway overpass isn't conducive to looking your best at interviews).

The idea that you can look at a graph of the DJIA and say "everyone is better off today than they were six months ago" would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragically popular.

 

[Harry Bosch]

One of the biggest problems in the world today is that lots of people genuinely think that economic indices like the DJIA are indicative of the economic experience of most people.

Most people don't own shares, other than through pension and superannuation systems that they will not access until retirement. Their daily lives are only distantly related to the state of the share market, and typically that relationship is statistical - the Dow falls, and 1 in 10 loses his job and goes from OK to destitute, while 9 out of ten see no change at all. Recovery implies no change for the 90% too. Maybe that one guy gets his job back (unless it's been long enough that he is no longer presentable enough to do so; Living in your car or under a freeway overpass isn't conducive to looking your best at interviews).

The idea that you can look at a graph of the DJIA and say "everyone is better off today than they were six months ago" would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragically popular.

What is your source of retirement? 55% of American households own some stock. A majority is reliant on the stock market for their retirement. Even a lot of state workers have their pensions invested in the market.

 

[bilby]

One of the biggest problems in the world today is that lots of people genuinely think that economic indices like the DJIA are indicative of the economic experience of most people.

Most people don't own shares, other than through pension and superannuation systems that they will not access until retirement. Their daily lives are only distantly related to the state of the share market, and typically that relationship is statistical - the Dow falls, and 1 in 10 loses his job and goes from OK to destitute, while 9 out of ten see no change at all. Recovery implies no change for the 90% too. Maybe that one guy gets his job back (unless it's been long enough that he is no longer presentable enough to do so; Living in your car or under a freeway overpass isn't conducive to looking your best at interviews).

The idea that you can look at a graph of the DJIA and say "everyone is better off today than they were six months ago" would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragically popular.

What is your source of retirement? 55% of American households own some stock. A majority is reliant on the stock market for their retirement. Even a lot of state workers have their pensions invested in the market.

Oh shit. It's such a shame I didn't anticipate this PRATT

A thirty year old's retirement plan has very little influence on his personal circumstances today.

 

[Elixir]

False Dow Jones average, 5 years:

View attachment 34756

See that spot in 2020 where it dropped way down? That's where they are measuring from. Same crap the global warming deniers play.

I know all that. In fact, due to my (justified) Trumparanoia I was sitting on cash at the time of the Big Dip and bought near the bottom, as did some of the billionaires. But nobody was all-out prior to that and jumped in 100% right at the exact bottom. Even if they had, the following year only saw a 20-something percent increase while billionaires' wealth jumped 40% in ten months. And as has been pointed out, DJIA is not the economy. Most people have in fact been hurt, so the divergence has been extreme no matter how diligently you try to slice it up to look equitable.

Only because it is intended to be big, and largely reusable, as I said (bolded above)...
What has Super Heavy produced so far? Nothing. The demo of the feasibility - proof of concept if you will - has been visually impressive. But so was Trump's campaign. How many of those oohing and aaahing over the latest launch would even recognize the name Biddle? To whom will the benefits accrue if/when the huge taxpayer investment starts paying off?

I would be very surprised if it doesn't work. Starship has already flown and landed. They're used to landing the Falcon boosters, this is just the same thing done bigger. The biggest cost to spaceflight is throwing away the hardware for every flight--and the Super Heavy throws away nothing.

Uh, the throwaway part is big but not ALL of it. I am hopeful that it works, but it's more parts, more problems. They're bundling more of the same thrusters, not simply scaling up a proven idea.

Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies
Commercial space companies have received $7.2 billion in government investment since 2000
Early public money can provide a big boost for private space businesses

(public money could lend a yuuuuge boost to my private lifestyle too)

To be clear, I do think that a public/private partnership could be viable and beneficial to both parties but It looks heavily tilted toward the benefit of the private party.

Of course SpaceX has gotten a ton of government money--they've launched a whole bunch of government payloads!

Again, they got much of the money up front (at taxpayers' risk), and to me it looks like they're poised to put themselves in the front of the line for returns on the entire taxpayer-funded venture.

 

[Harry Bosch]

One of the biggest problems in the world today is that lots of people genuinely think that economic indices like the DJIA are indicative of the economic experience of most people.

Most people don't own shares, other than through pension and superannuation systems that they will not access until retirement. Their daily lives are only distantly related to the state of the share market, and typically that relationship is statistical - the Dow falls, and 1 in 10 loses his job and goes from OK to destitute, while 9 out of ten see no change at all. Recovery implies no change for the 90% too. Maybe that one guy gets his job back (unless it's been long enough that he is no longer presentable enough to do so; Living in your car or under a freeway overpass isn't conducive to looking your best at interviews).

The idea that you can look at a graph of the DJIA and say "everyone is better off today than they were six months ago" would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragically popular.

What is your source of retirement? 55% of American households own some stock. A majority is reliant on the stock market for their retirement. Even a lot of state workers have their pensions invested in the market.

Oh shit. It's such a shame I didn't anticipate this PRATT

A thirty year old's retirement plan has very little influence on his personal circumstances today.

Well, you're generalizing here. That certainly didn't apply to me when I was 30. Maybe I'm an outlier. But I doubt that. I know plenty of younger people who would like to retire someday. And SSN in America dosn't cover all retirement costs. In fact, many younger people that I know fear that SSN will run out for them.

 

[Elixir]

Oh shit. It's such a shame I didn't anticipate this PRATT

A thirty year old's retirement plan has very little influence on his personal circumstances today.

Well, you're generalizing here. That certainly didn't apply to me when I was 30. Maybe I'm an outlier. But I doubt that. I know plenty of younger people who would like to retire someday. And SSN in America dosn't cover all retirement costs. In fact, many younger people that I know fear that SSN will run out for them.

We all tend to generalize from our own experience. I owned "land" (10 acres of pine trees near treeline above 10,000 feet in the middle of nowhere) when I was 20 years old. Never owned any stocks or bonds until I was over 40. As a non-participant I was very much immune to shit like stock market variations. But if I had invested that few thousand in an index fund at the time, it would be worth a pretty penny today. So it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of smarter people than I, got into it very early in life.

 

[DBT]

Depends on income, conditions, permanent, casual, secure employment, etc, and ability to manage finances. Without a reasonable income, life being uncertain, not even a good money manager can secure a prosperous present or a bright future, unless a new opportunity comes along.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[DBT]

They don't mind accepting tax payer money to the tune of billions in order to subsidize their business activities......