- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
We already went to the Moon and back, last millennium. That is all the proof I need.
Why do you want private sector involvement in infrastructure?
It is capital intensive and can best be accomplished by the public sector, on a not for profit basis.
Yes, the state of the Highways in America make me really think handing over the Internet Infrastructure to "Government" is a great idea...
Yes, it's terribly not being forced to pay a union you don't want to join, to represent you, to spend your money on politics you don't agree on... that's why everywhere unions aren't forced on people they collapse.
You seem to forget that the Government is the reason we HAVE those highways in the first place.
This is what a libertarian highway looks like:
https://www.facebook.com/glimboo/videos/419964741757240/
Actually, Nasa was a mess, we had plans to be on Mars by the early 80's but, Government being fickle, didn't do it, canceled the Apollo and follow on missions. Blame Nixon, go look it up.
Actually, Nasa was a mess, we had plans to be on Mars by the early 80's but, Government being fickle, didn't do it, canceled the Apollo and follow on missions. Blame Nixon, go look it up.
You seem to forget that the Government is the reason we HAVE those highways in the first place.
This is what a libertarian highway looks like:
https://www.facebook.com/glimboo/videos/419964741757240/
Also, government isn't going to get into the infrastructure business, it's just supposed to make sure it meets suitable standards. That's protection of the end user.
The Government didn't build the highways, they just ensured that they would be built proper. It is up to taxpayers and elected leaders to make sure that they get the revenue they need.
Actually, Nasa was a mess, we had plans to be on Mars by the early 80's but, Government being fickle, didn't do it, canceled the Apollo and follow on missions. Blame Nixon, go look it up.
Don't do this. You're engaging based on a ridiculous premise. Renae is claiming the internet under net neutrality is "handed over" to the government. Airlines are heavily regulated, but the government doesn't own them.
It was command economics, not capitalism that took us to the Moon and back, last millennium.
The NASA space race to the Moon generated the single largest and most important technological leap forward in the history of the human race.
Everything you use today that uses a microprocessor exists because we needed microprocessors to be able to make it to the Moon.
Even TELEVISION VIDEOTAPE editing was made feasible by the EECO On-Time Telemetry Management System's "time code" because television's S.M.P.T.E. time code was taken from EECO.
It is for collective bargaining, which that individual benefits from.
No one is arguing the benefits provided. But it was inefficient, and because it was government run, prone to the decisions and desires of new Administrations. thus One President says "GO TO MARS" the next says "GO TO ASTEROIDS" the next says "GO TO MOON" And Nasa can't ever long term plan, stuff get's disgned, planned and then funding is shunted to a new project and it starts all over again. Nasa is a great example of how Government isn't a great long term answer for things.
The private sector never even got to the moon. Let me know when the private sector gets to Mars.
My friend...you know I love most of what you have to say, but I'm not with you on this one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-more-money-off-them/?utm_term=.6c5b39f772cb
Here's another approach:
Internet in America: The biggest problem, a lack of competition, could be solved by a radical idea - Business Insider
There are always options...it just depends on whether your priority is to do what's good for the customer or the shareholder.
Just because I was gone, and returned doesn't mean I read your posts, this is a one off just to remind you to quit filling my notification box with junk. KK Thanks.
It was government "heavy lifting" assisting capitalism as a public-private venture.
Government hired private contractors to build everything.
There is no government owned factory building rockets and engines, or designing microprocessor electronics.
No one is arguing the benefits provided. But it was inefficient, and because it was government run, prone to the decisions and desires of new Administrations. thus One President says "GO TO MARS" the next says "GO TO ASTEROIDS" the next says "GO TO MOON" And Nasa can't ever long term plan, stuff get's disgned, planned and then funding is shunted to a new project and it starts all over again. Nasa is a great example of how Government isn't a great long term answer for things.
You keep missing the point, in that government isn't there to be used as an ANSWER, it's just there to ensure that the taxpayer investment benefits the end user, the taxpayer.
Blaming government for the sins of crooked leaders is dodging the issue.
Only we set the priorities and our priorities have been out of whack for a long time, and if our priorities were in order, things would be run better. We get what we deserve.
Simple analogy here, if our priorities are for more prisons, we get less schools.
It's the old guns and butter issue over and over again.
The notion of spreading hatred for the government and saying it can't do anything right, and then when you get into power, doing your level best to prove that statement true is a cheap parlor trick, and Republicans have been doing that same cheap parlor trick for almost a half century.
Had NASA NOT leveraged microprocessor technology so heavily, and stayed with transistors and vacuum tubes, we might have still made it to the Moon eventually, however it would have been much more costly and much more dangerous.
Microprocessors still would have been invented anyway but their path to that of a very cheap resource for consumer electronics would have been delayed by as much as a decade or more, the way they were delayed in the USSR and later, Russia...which only began catching up in consumer microprocessor electronics around the year 2002 or so.
It was the government "heavy lifting" that gave PRIVATE INDUSTRY the boost and the shot in the arm that it needed to get them to market that much faster, because government investment in economies of scale and manufacturing was a huge boost and a cushion against R&D overhead.
The former Soviets, beat us to space.
Government exists to further Government. The rule of Burecracy and the US Government is just a jobs program run by power mad people these days.
At first...we eventually beat THEM because our government invested in the kind of research and development that would simultaneously give them an aerospace/military edge PLUS a large boost to consumer development at the same time. It is only because of consumer economies of scale that a microprocessor became as cheap as it did, as quickly as it did.
Private industry proved to government that it was not feasible to develop microprocessors exclusively as a toy for the military and the space program, they had to be universally available at a consumer level in order to be available at all.
The Soviets continued to rely on already available technology like transistors and vacuum tubes for YEARS after we abandoned that category.
Then it would behoove you to disconnect from the use of ANYTHING ever developed with government assistance, wouldn't it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?