Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable

On Mar 9, 6:36 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Michael Turner" <l...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

:Fred, I'm just going to quote your words right back at you.
:
:"If you're getting subsidized, you're not talking about 'the market'
:anymore. You're talking about what the subsidy giver decides."
:
:This came after Rand responded to questions from Tokorton about
:choices of engine, craft, company, etc., by saying "let the market
:decide."
:
:You still haven't said how the market is NOT going to make these
:decisions.

Because you've distorted the market with the subsidy.

Oh, so we *can* still talk about markets, albeit distorted ones. I
thought you said that once there's a subsidy, we're not talking about
the market anymore. But now, it seems we are still talking about the
market -- a distorted one. Make up your mind.

So 'the market'
is not deciding. The distortion is the 'decision'.

"The 'decision'"? Which decision? Let's say it's TSTO over SSTO.
How did the subsidy make that decision, if the subsidy isn't specific
to one of the two approaches, if the subsidy says absolutely nothing
about how stuff should get to orbit? Tell me: how did the subsidy
selected TSTO? Get specific.

Of course a subsidy is a decision. But why is it THE decision, all
the way down the line? How does a subsidy for coal power, for
example, dictate whether conventional boilers or oxyfuel burners are
chosen? How does a subsidy for nuclear power dictate reactor design?

Your debating strategy seems to come down to expressing ideas very
sloppily, and flinging accusations of stupidity at anyone
insufficiently telepathic to figure out what you *really* mean.

-michael turner

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast