Current Events > Here's why private enterprise will always win against the government.

(+) Yeah! (+)

rant incoming

NASA is by far the most prolific and amazing institution for exploration in the modern era, because since it's inception up until the near future, it's the best-funded and most cohesive organization dedicated to that cause.

Meanwhile, SpaceX has developed rockets that will land themselves after separating from their shuttle, meaning they could be used over and over again, unlike NASA's model which basically turn these multi-million dollar rockets into scrap after every launch.

http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/06/24/why-and-how-landing-rockets

NASA was fully capable of developing this technology. There's no reason they couldn't, but why didn't they?

Because unlike SpaceX, NASA has no motivation for making spaceflight cheaper. If they developed technology that meant they would consistently go under-budget, the only outcome would be that their budget would get slashed to the lower amount. An organization that had a massive motivation to save money however has a lot of motivation to make spaceflight as cheap as possible, because if they didn't, their livelihoods would be over. The exact opposite is true of government organizations; the more expensive their endeavor, the more convincing they can make their petitions for more funding.

Consider also the USPS. Before companies like FedEx arrived, there was no such thing as tracking numbers. There were no guaranteed delivery dates. You kind of had to trust a package would arrive eventually. Not only did the private enterprise have a motivation to provide a better service than everyone else did, but their vastly superior customer service forced the USPS to pull up their bootstraps so that they wouldn't die on the sand. That's the reason USPS has tracking numbers and guaranteed delivery dates now: thanks to private enterprise.

Now NASA is obviously a much bigger and technologically more advanced animal than the post office is. For now, it's unquestionably the gold standard for space exploration, but that won't be the case forever. Eventually, private companies will do to NASA what they did to the USPS. They have a motivation to be better and more efficient, and the government just doesn't.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Now NASA is obviously a much bigger and technologically more advanced animal than the post office is

ok
---

The notion that companies have the motivation to be more efficient making them better is spoken by people who apparently never took a good hard look at ISPs.

The only efficiency a business cares about is how efficiently they make money, by any means necessary.
---

NASA is focused on pioneering the field. They don't care about bringing it to consumers, I agree. But when we landed on the moon, it was NASA that brought us there. When we land on Mars, it will be NASA that lands us there. When we exceed the speed of light, that will be NASAs doing as well.
---

Tmk posted...

The notion that companies have the motivation to be more efficient making them better is spoken by people who apparently never took a good hard look at ISPs.

The only efficiency a business cares about is how efficiently they make money, by any means necessary.

And the best way to make money is to make your expenses as little as possible and still providing a better, cheaper service than the other guy. And this engenders advancement, as we've seen with SpaceX doing things NASA would never do.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

When we exceed the speed of light, that will be NASAs doing as well.

Impossible. Physically, logically impossible.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

NASA is focused on pioneering the field. They don't care about bringing it to consumers, I agree. But when we landed on the moon, it was NASA that brought us there. When we land on Mars, it will be NASA that lands us there. When we exceed the speed of light, that will be NASAs doing as well.

There's a lot of things that were once only possible under purview of the government, but those things stop requiring the government eventually.

As soon as technology becomes advanced enough to mine Helium-3 on the moon, private companies will be the ones going to the moon all the time, not the government.
---

Duncanwii posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

When we exceed the speed of light, that will be NASAs doing as well.

Impossible. Physically, logically impossible.

to our current knowledge and limitations, yes. things that were previously thought to be impossible have been made possible.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

And the best way to make money is to make your expenses as little as possible and still providing a better, cheaper service than the other guy.

No the best way to make money is to stagnate progress, make deals with competitors to section off territories to limit competition and invent new ways to literally charge more for less and writing the rules that are ultimately supposed to keep you in line.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

NASA is focused on pioneering the field. They don't care about bringing it to consumers, I agree. But when we landed on the moon, it was NASA that brought us there. When we land on Mars, it will be NASA that lands us there. When we exceed the speed of light, that will be NASAs doing as well.

There's a lot of things that were once only possible under purview of the government, but those things stop requiring the government eventually.

As soon as technology becomes advanced enough to mine Helium-3 on the moon, private companies will be the ones going to the moon all the time, not the government.

that wont bring us any closer to pluto and beyond. NASA will.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

NASA was fully capable of developing this technology. There's no reason they couldn't, but why didn't they?

That's easy, because they hired SpaceX to do so for them.

Rika_Furude posted...

Duncanwii posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

When we exceed the speed of light, that will be NASAs doing as well.

Impossible. Physically, logically impossible.

to our current knowledge and limitations, yes. things that were previously thought to be impossible have been made possible.

Human beings will not defy physics. There are things we just cannot do. Exceeding the speed of light is one of them.
---

Duncanwii posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Duncanwii posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

When we exceed the speed of light, that will be NASAs doing as well.

Impossible. Physically, logically impossible.

to our current knowledge and limitations, yes. things that were previously thought to be impossible have been made possible.

Human beings will not defy physics. There are things we just cannot do. Exceeding the speed of light is one of them.

theyve said that about other things in the past as well. its easy for you to say right here and now with our current level of knowledge. who knows what we will discover 5000 years from now
---

Tmk posted...

No the best way to make money is to stagnate progress, make deals with competitors to section off territories to limit competition and invent new ways to literally charge more for less and writing the rules that are ultimately supposed to keep you in line.

How does that explain why it's only the developed capitalist countries developing newer better technology at lower and lower costs

Rika_Furude posted...

that wont bring us any closer to pluto and beyond. NASA will.

How do you figure? It was mostly merchants traveling between Europe and the New World, not the royal fleet.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

How does that explain

It's not explaining anything except how things actually are. You can accept reality or deny it, changes nothing.
---

Tmk posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

How does that explain

It's not explaining anything except how things actually are. You can accept reality or deny it, changes nothing.

You say, as example after example shows the exact opposite is true.
---

I literally described how it works.
---

Seems like government funding was necessary in providing the proof of concept that encouraged private enterprise that there was actually profit to be made. As far as innovation goes, business and government need each other.
---

Tmk posted...

I literally described how it works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGn55BRyDSk" data-time="
---

SGT_Conti posted...

Seems like government funding was necessary in providing the proof of concept that encouraged private enterprise that there was actually profit to be made. As far as innovation goes, business and government need each other.

For massive endeavors that can, at the time, only be accomplished with the kind of funding the government has, yes. But the smartphone wasn't invented because the government did it first, nor the car, nor the airplane.

And nor did those inventions come about because some company lobbied in favor of their own business ventures at the expense of the consumer.
---

False equivalency at its finest.

TBH.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

SGT_Conti posted...

Seems like government funding was necessary in providing the proof of concept that encouraged private enterprise that there was actually profit to be made. As far as innovation goes, business and government need each other.

For massive endeavors that can, at the time, only be accomplished with the kind of funding the government has, yes. But the smartphone wasn't invented because the government did it first, nor the car, nor the airplane.

And nor did those inventions come about because some company lobbied in favor of their own business ventures at the expense of the consumer.

private for-profit companies didn't invent the computer. correct me if i'm wrong but the wright brothers didn't invent the plane to make a profit
---

Rika_Furude posted...

private for-profit companies didn't invent the computer. correct me if i'm wrong but the wright brothers didn't invent the plane to make a profit

No, but others did. Lockheed isn't a government operation, right? Yet they get contracts from the government because the government just isn't as capable of making vehicles as well as they can.
---

SpaceX basically is NASA now anyways. Privatization (in a way) is probably the best thing to ever happen to the space program.

Mal_Fet posted...

Yet they get contracts from the government because the government just isn't as capable of making vehicles as well as they can.

I'd to see like your source please.

JE19426 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Yet they get contracts from the government because the government just isn't as capable of making vehicles as well as they can.

I'd to see like your source please.

Like literally all military jets and planes are made by private companies. Lockheed, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas etc. This is well known stuff.

Cal12 posted...

Like literally all military jets and planes are made by private companies. Lockheed, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas etc. This is well known stuff.

That's not a source for the claim I asked for.

JE19426 posted...

Cal12 posted...

Like literally all military jets and planes are made by private companies. Lockheed, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas etc. This is well known stuff.

That's not a source for the claim I asked for.

You literally chopped off part of his post talking about Lockheed. What claim are you specifically looking for a source for? Numerous private companies make vehicles for the US military. The government also didnt invent the car, plane or smartphone so Im kind of at a loss here as to what source you need?

Cal12 posted...

What claim are you specifically looking for a source for?

The claim that I quoted.

I mean it's not other people's job to educate your dumb ass on something that's commonly known, isn't it? you have the internet for that.
---

Cookie Bag posted...

I mean it's not other people's job to educate your dumb ass on something that's commonly known, isn't it? you have the internet for that.

Surely you can troll better then this.

Cookie Bag posted...

I mean it's not other people's job to educate your dumb ass on something that's commonly known, isn't it? you have the internet for that.

Jumping in only to same something equally as stupid as the topic itself.

It's a bold strategy cotton.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Meanwhile, SpaceX has developed rockets that will land themselves after separating from their shuttle, meaning they could be used over and over again, unlike NASA's model which basically turn these multi-million dollar rockets into scrap after every launch.

Where are you getting it that NASA never made the attempt? As far as I know, NASA's goal has always been to make space travel possible with safety as their primary motivator. If reusable parts can still hold up to the rigors of space travel then I'm sure that NASA would have used them.

You kind of set up your very own specific metric to compare NASA and Space X, and since this is the only thing SpaceX is capable of doing better than NASA you've already declared them the winner.
---

Now let's compare NIH funded intramural and extramural research to private heath science companies.
---

mal, you're completely wrong

government employs thousands of consultants to optimize/cost-cut their programs so they can achieve more objectives with the same budget

i should know

i am one

the reason NASA can't do what spaceX is doing is mostly that every 8 years some new asshole comes to the white house and pulls the plug on whatever they've been doing and makes them start over
---

Darkman124 posted...

mal, you're completely wrong

government employs thousands of consultants to optimize/cost-cut their programs so they can achieve more objectives with the same budget

i should know

i am one

the reason NASA can't do what spaceX is doing is mostly that every 8 years some new asshole comes to the white house and pulls the plug on whatever they've been doing and makes them start over

Um, isn't Trump highly supportive of NASA

And my point is NASA needs convincing reasons for increasing their budget. Isn't sending rockets into space a lot more convincing of a need for NASA to Congress than testing how platinum reacts with electricity in a vacuum or something
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Um, isn't Trump highly supportive of NASA

And my point is NASA needs convincing reasons for increasing their budget. Isn't sending rockets into space a lot more convincing of a need for NASA to Congress than testing how platinum reacts with electricity in a vacuum or something

like past presidents trump redirected NASA's central mission.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018_budget_estimates.pdf

as you can see dramatic cuts were ordered in their earth sciences div, and dramatic increases in their planetary sciences/discovery division, which is what they call space exploration.

this is in direct response for the call to moon/mars missions by the republican admin. they also did this in response to the bush admin's calls.

meanwhile, under clinton and obama, and almost certainly under the democrat that replaces trump, NASA budgets went in the reverse direction.

they are a victim of our political tug-of-war, because of the long scope of their projects.

and as their budget has not grown at all--and is expected by them to shrink in FY2018 and beyond--your statement that they have had significant support from the present admin is founded on absolutely nothing.

anytime a program can be run at lesser expense, what happens is its objectives are expanded and a success is reported that more was done with the same money--and then expansions in budget are requested so the expanded objectives can be capitalized upon further. there is always motivation for efficiency within government work.

I interned at NASA and saw the havoc of changing administrations firsthand. This is my field, and I avoid NASA like the plague because when Bush took office all my mentors lost their funding as it went to development of the CEV...and then those guys lost their funding as it went to different earth science work.

I won't respond to your characterization of the nature of NASA earth sciences and non-exploration related planetary sciences.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Um, isn't Trump highly supportive of NASA

And my point is NASA needs convincing reasons for increasing their budget. Isn't sending rockets into space a lot more convincing of a need for NASA to Congress than testing how platinum reacts with electricity in a vacuum or something

like past presidents trump redirected NASA's central mission.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018_budget_estimates.pdf

as you can see dramatic cuts were ordered in their earth sciences div, and dramatic increases in their planetary sciences/discovery division, which is what they call space exploration.

this is in direct response for the call to moon/mars missions by the republican admin. they also did this in response to the bush admin's calls.

meanwhile, under clinton and obama, and almost certainly under the democrat that replaces trump, NASA budgets went in the reverse direction.

they are a victim of our political tug-of-war, because of the long scope of their projects.

and as their budget has not grown at all--and is expected by them to shrink in FY2018 and beyond--your statement that they have had significant support from the present admin is founded on absolutely nothing.

anytime a program can be run at lesser expense, what happens is its objectives are expanded and a success is reported that more was done with the same money--and then expansions in budget are requested so the expanded objectives can be capitalized upon further. there is always motivation for efficiency within government work.

I interned at NASA and saw the havoc of changing administrations firsthand. This is my field, and I avoid NASA like the plague because when Bush took office all my mentors lost their funding as it went to development of the CEV...and then those guys lost their funding as it went to different earth science work.

I won't respond to your characterization of the nature of NASA earth sciences and non-exploration related planetary sciences.

Let's take everything you said here and accept it as fact. I have always held the position that the government is inefficient at endeavors beyond the scope of their most basic functions, so I don't doubt any of it. This doesn't run counter to what I've said; private enterprise will always have one unifying goal: make returns on investment. If it becomes profitable to do something, that's what a company will do, regardless of a change in administration. They have no reason to proceed in a losing endeavor at the expense of a profitable one. Meanwhile, government won't necessarily pursue the best action; they'll pursue the option that scores the most points with voters. People are a lot more honest about their wants and needs when they're paying their own money for something than when they're just voting on a whim in a booth; that's why the disastrous high-speed rail project in California is such a shitshow. People voted for it because the idea sounded nice, but at the end of the day no one wants to pay for a ticket that takes them from Los Angeles CA to Bumfuck CA in 30 minutes.

In short, yes, private companies are also immune to political optics. As long as an organization's motivation is to provide things people want to buy, they'll wind up producing better, cheaper products than the government can.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Duncanwii posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Duncanwii posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

When we exceed the speed of light, that will be NASAs doing as well.

Impossible. Physically, logically impossible.

to our current knowledge and limitations, yes. things that were previously thought to be impossible have been made possible.

Human beings will not defy physics. There are things we just cannot do. Exceeding the speed of light is one of them.

theyve said that about other things in the past as well. its easy for you to say right here and now with our current level of knowledge. who knows what we will discover 5000 years from now

NASA probably wont exist 5000 years from now.
---

I like how one innocent topic inspired this entire rant.
---

So what we should do is make government entities more efficient. There is no reason they can't be properly run, they just currently aren't so we need a cultural shift within the government to bring about a more effective public sector.
---

uwnim posted...

So what we should do is make government entities more efficient. There is no reason they can't be properly run, they just currently aren't so we need a cultural shift within the government to bring about a more effective public sector.

If your best plan for making the government work as efficiently as a private entity is to impose a "cultural shift", then it's probably never going to happen.

Why not simply let the government does what it already does best and let private enterprises do what they do best?
---

*whispers*
It's not a competition.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

NASA is focused on pioneering the field. They don't care about bringing it to consumers, I agree. But when we landed on the moon, it was NASA that brought us there. When we land on Mars, it will be NASA that lands us there. When we exceed the speed of light, that will be NASAs doing as well.

Thats funny because NASA cant even remember how to get us past the Van Allen radiation belt and they destroyed all the records of how they did it the first time which is why no human has gone more than 400 miles out since 1972. Doesnt really seem like they are up to snuff or even working on it at all to me. NASA cant even get us to the moon let alone the Mars lol.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

uwnim posted...

So what we should do is make government entities more efficient. There is no reason they can't be properly run, they just currently aren't so we need a cultural shift within the government to bring about a more effective public sector.

If your best plan for making the government work as efficiently as a private entity is to impose a "cultural shift", then it's probably never going to happen.

Why not simply let the government does what it already does best and let private enterprises do what they do best?

I mean, government funded science exists for a reason, which is that for the vast majority of it, no private company would fund/do it.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

uwnim posted...

So what we should do is make government entities more efficient. There is no reason they can't be properly run, they just currently aren't so we need a cultural shift within the government to bring about a more effective public sector.

If your best plan for making the government work as efficiently as a private entity is to impose a "cultural shift", then it's probably never going to happen.

Why not simply let the government does what it already does best and let private enterprises do what they do best?

Well, if the government is in general inefficient, then it is still inefficient at the things it does better than private enterprises.
Such a thing cannot be called a plan, it is simply saying things as they are do not work. So what would need to be done is identifying what doesn't work and propose solutions to the various issues.
From the quick look through the topic, I see you brought up that government agencies have little reason to reduce cost as they want to use up their budget. Another person brought up that changes to administration every 4 or 8 years cause projects to be cancelled and others started only to be cancelled by the next presidency. Looking at those, I get the idea that there is no value in excellence at the highest levels.
---

It's not a secret that most government initiatives are inefficient and lagging behind in terms of innovation.

COVxy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

uwnim posted...

So what we should do is make government entities more efficient. There is no reason they can't be properly run, they just currently aren't so we need a cultural shift within the government to bring about a more effective public sector.

If your best plan for making the government work as efficiently as a private entity is to impose a "cultural shift", then it's probably never going to happen.

Why not simply let the government does what it already does best and let private enterprises do what they do best?

I mean, government funded science exists for a reason, which is that for the vast majority of it, no private company would fund/do it.

Not because they had no motivation, but the technology didn't exist to accomplish it without funding at the government level. Now that's changing.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Not because they had no motivation, but the technology didn't exist to accomplish it without funding at the government level. Now that's changing.

No, because the vast majority of science doesn't lead to any profitable venture.
---