Re: Cheap Access to Space

On 19 Dec, 17:53, simberg.interglo...@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:35:43 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:







A market requires technology developments to be privately financed.

Nonsense.

If
they are not then there is not competition on a level playing field. I
think you are inclined to want it both ways, you want private
developments in space (code for space tourism) but you want hidden
subsidies, you do not want true transparancy.

Again, no one care what ignorant, unfounded, and stupid things that
you "think" (using the term generously).

Most reputable economists are stupid and ignorant too. All this has in
fact been thrashed out by the EU. EU rules do not allow nationalised
indusries to compete directly for precisely the reasons given.

Your nutty fantasies about what I want, or am "inclined to want" have
nothing to do with what economists think, or EU rules.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep showing your complete ignorance of everything. It should be
obvious to anyone that you cannot have a nationalized industry with a
large subsidy competing in the marketplace. However you seem ununually
dense.

If you are talking about fantasies - well space colonies and space
tourism really are. As I have said before what you want is space
tourism based on an industry which is both nationalized and
subsidized.

Again talking about my fantasies. I speak (and read) French and German
fluently. Seeing a translation was NOT a fantasy. Google has achieved
what it has without being nationalized and without a subsidy. To
listen to ypou one can only come to two conculsions. The first of
these is that space cannot survive in the commercial world. Progress
cannot be made without a massive subsidy. Computing and AI are doing
very well without subsidies without which space by your own admission
cannot surviive. The second is of course the fact that the US can
never win hearts and minds anywhere.

To my way of thinking there is only one justification for bucking a
market, and that is to level it for the less fortunate. Provide
Medicare and Medicade. Socialism for the rich is fascism, it is
National Socialism.


- Ian Parker
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cheap Access to Space
    ... they are not then there is not competition on a level playing field. ... developments in space (code for space tourism) but you want hidden ... Your nutty fantasies about what I want, or am "inclined to want" have ... what it has without being nationalized and without a subsidy. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Cheap Access to Space
    ... they are not then there is not competition on a level playing field. ... what it has without being nationalized and without a subsidy. ... To me Capitalism represents truth. ... 120 flights with 2 total losses. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Cheap Access to Space
    ... Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow ... developments in space (code for space tourism) but you want hidden ... what it has without being nationalized and without a subsidy. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Megabus to link Sunderland and London
    ... The competition is there but when one side ignores the other, ... Should a state rail company receiving a subsidy be forced ... I'll think you'll find one way or another that road users are being ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Megabus to link Sunderland and London
    ... Should a state rail company receiving a subsidy be forced ... shouldnt go into competition with Megabus" then why should they ... I'll think you'll find one way or another that road users are being ... bridge was that it was unfair to throw money at the A9 whilst denying ...
    (uk.railway)
Quantcast