The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk

Started by Solar, June 04, 2017, 08:03:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

topside

Quote from: Solar on June 08, 2017, 05:50:58 AM
I had the same opportunities as Musk, saw the deals being offered, but I refused to take them, I was even offered sealed bids running in the millions, I refused to partake in the theft of taxpayer money.
I'm not alone, the majority of people I worked with refused to take the money as well, not everyone is willing to work with the Devil. It's what makes us Conservatives.

I run into so-called conservatives all the time that rail against the liberal agenda ... that is until it's time for them to take their cost reduction, tax advantage, rebate, etc. - a very common form of hypocrisy.

Solar

Quote from: topside on June 09, 2017, 11:44:28 AM
I run into so-called conservatives all the time that rail against the liberal agenda ... that is until it's time for them to take their cost reduction, tax advantage, rebate, etc. - a very common form of hypocrisy.
Yep, theft is theft. Just because the govt stole it first, in no way makes one innocent in any way when receiving stolen property, they are just as complicit as an accomplice in a bank robbery while driving the getaway car or laundering the money.
For this very reason, I refused to join in the theft of the taxpayer by selling grid tied solar panels so the customer could further raid this nation's treasure.
I sleep well at night.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Hoofer

Quote from: topside on June 09, 2017, 11:44:28 AM
I run into so-called conservatives all the time that rail against the liberal agenda ... that is until it's time for them to take their cost reduction, tax advantage, rebate, etc. - a very common form of hypocrisy.

Ditto...  but there are more Liberals milking that cow than Conservatives, so that makes us more moral (not).

"Ya know, it's those big guys, not the little ones that need to be reigned in, they're getting rich off the tax payers!"

Harrrrr-uph!   Add up all those little guys who are taking benefits they should honestly take, and the problem becomes more apparent.

How many little guys will "retire with a nice nest egg" - after taking US government benefits their entire lives, because our government wants everyone dependent on taxpayer handouts.  They are life-long dependents, wards of the state, the first to comply with any directive handed down... and the first to do the bidding of a police action, if you're suddenly deemed "illegal" for something that was "legal".
Like a wood burner for heat, if the EPA outlaws them - and offers $$$ for any information leading to the arrest of a violator, yup, they'll cash in on you.

IMO what Elon Musk is doing is perfectly legal, and immoral.  By the government picking winners, the real innovators who don't want his brand of environmentalism are completely frozen out of the market.  Elon Musk doesn't have to build a business like the rest of Americans, turning a profit, etc., he has been given a lot of freebies - not mortgaging his house to put his plans into motion.  If his businesses ventures go belly up, he'll still walk away, clean.   Thanks to the government, he has been given an unfair market advantage, IMO, that's immoral.
All animals are created equal; Some just take longer to cook.   Survival is keeping an eye on those around you...

Solar

Quote from: Hoofer on June 09, 2017, 05:35:28 PM
Ditto...  but there are more Liberals milking that cow than Conservatives, so that makes us more moral (not).

"Ya know, it's those big guys, not the little ones that need to be reigned in, they're getting rich off the tax payers!"

Harrrrr-uph!   Add up all those little guys who are taking benefits they should honestly take, and the problem becomes more apparent.

How many little guys will "retire with a nice nest egg" - after taking US government benefits their entire lives, because our government wants everyone dependent on taxpayer handouts.  They are life-long dependents, wards of the state, the first to comply with any directive handed down... and the first to do the bidding of a police action, if you're suddenly deemed "illegal" for something that was "legal".
Like a wood burner for heat, if the EPA outlaws them - and offers $$$ for any information leading to the arrest of a violator, yup, they'll cash in on you.

IMO what Elon Musk is doing is perfectly legal, and immoral.  By the government picking winners, the real innovators who don't want his brand of environmentalism are completely frozen out of the market.  Elon Musk doesn't have to build a business like the rest of Americans, turning a profit, etc., he has been given a lot of freebies - not mortgaging his house to put his plans into motion. If his businesses ventures go belly up, he'll still walk away, clean.   Thanks to the government, he has been given an unfair market advantage, IMO, that's immoral.
Nailed it!!!
The taxpayer is on the hook for his (soon to be) guaranteed business failure, the govt backed his loan, Hell, they gave him the loan, and as an LLC, he personally will walk away without a mark, because he could afford to buy protection most start up companies only dream of.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

topside

There needs to be a national online Wall of Shame and a nice spot in the Smithsonian (which we also pay for) that identifies all the companies that the govt. dumped our taxpayer money in only for them to go out-of-business a few years later ... and the owners walk away with their wheel barrows full of our tax dollars. I can picture a poster for each that shows the company name and product, the owner smiling with a wheel-barrow of money, and print that shows it's duration (tombstone w/ start and fail dates), and print how much was invested. The president who was on duty during that time should go on there somewhere too.

Businesses propped up with funding like Musk's Tesla will never survive once the funding is pulled because the owners have no sense of what really makes it viable - never had to earn their stripes and develop the feel for what balances the cart. Musk was there at the right time when BO was in love with anti-fossil-fuel initiatives. I doubt if govt. funded startups ever sustain as there are those who send out the (our) money don't mind the farm.  Yes- some VC startups with a good plan and monitoring can benefit from early venture capital, but it usually requires gates for incremental release, is less than $1-5M (some exceptions), has those expecting a return and vested ownership watching the farm along with the owner, and is typically finished in less than 10 years.

I doubt if Musk has any idea whether or not Tesla is self-sustaining; hope I'm wrong and I hope he's on top of it ... but I doubt it. Fundamentally, the battery technology and charging infrastructure isn't there to support the product. But Tesla is very forward thinking - probably just released before it could be sustained. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem.

But he also demonstrated innovation in bringing along Pay Pal (his bread-and-butter) and SpaceX is very forward thinking. SpaceX may become a viable alternative to NASA in the coming years ... another path to move space exploration to the free market. Right now they are symbiotic, but SpaceX can do things faster and for much less. Mainly because they can control the strength of their employee force (hire and fire) and be more agile (less red tape) than NASA. Although, SpaceX could just become the next bloated govt. contractor too (e.g., Lockheed Martin) that is slow and micro-managed by the govt.

The point is, involving govt. funding beyond the basic start-up phase is not effective. I've heard that supporting start ups is one thing that our dollars to bear fruit in.  But I've not researched any real data on whether it's true. The return for private investment would probably overcome govt. investment if the VCs didn't want so much ownership of innovations - there is middle ground but the current environment seems to work at the extremes.

The whole greed aspect of our fallen nature is what initiates the government to get involved in aspects of our lives. I KNOW that most on this site will dislike this statement, but I think it's the balancing point between PURE (Godly) conservatism and socialism. Define and ecosystem to include all aspects touched by an entity: financial, infrastructure, environment, workers, usefulness to economy, etc. The conservatives have to deal with the fact that some entities will not do what's best overall for an ecosystem and violation require external intervention to keep from harming ... our government is the external entity. For example, there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth while there are those who are living in poverty; those at the top could choose, on their own, to work the poverty problem. In fact, many do ... but many don't. Yes, there are many other issues regarding motivation of those living life at the bottom, but there is also an onus involved on those at the top.

But the socialists miss the point that once govt. gets involved, even if they start with pure altruistic intentions, control may / will eventually fall into a Marxists hands and be manipulated to control the people. The primary difference is between a distributed system and centralized control ... under human control, a system under centralized control can and will go wrong eventually. Once the government has control of something, you can't count on it staying altruistic because those at the helm will change and control will transfer. That's why the checks and balances of our constitution work so well: the Christian morals that set it up are invariant, the substance of the constitution is fairly stable (difficult to change), and the rule of law is subservient to the constitutional principles and the laws are subject to balance of power between the branches of government. 

The brand of liberalism that's on the market now is failed because it has no moral base. Their belief is that there is no true faith. Believe whatever you want ... essentially you are God. Good luck with that. Then you end up with things like save the whales, hug the trees, kill the babies. And my favorite ($#&!@*$) ... teach our children that they can choose their sex then get it changed.

So I've diverged from the post a little :-) ... Musk should get no subsidies for any of his existing businesses at this point as they are past the initial development phase and need to self-sustain. And his financial position allows him to self sustain his other initiatives without govt. investment ... to such a ridiculous level and in so many ways that I can't believe it's even a consideration. 

supsalemgr

Quote from: topside on June 10, 2017, 05:59:06 AM
There needs to be a national online Wall of Shame and a nice spot in the Smithsonian (which we also pay for) that identifies all the companies that the govt. dumped our taxpayer money in only for them to go out-of-business a few years later ... and the owners walk away with their wheel barrows full of our tax dollars. I can picture a poster for each that shows the company name and product, the owner smiling with a wheel-barrow of money, and print that shows it's duration (tombstone w/ start and fail dates), and print how much was invested. The president who was on duty during that time should go on there somewhere too.

Businesses propped up with funding like Musk's Tesla will never survive once the funding is pulled because the owners have no sense of what really makes it viable - never had to earn their stripes and develop the feel for what balances the cart. Musk was there at the right time when BO was in love with anti-fossil-fuel initiatives. I doubt if govt. funded startups ever sustain as there are those who send out the (our) money don't mind the farm.  Yes- some VC startups with a good plan and monitoring can benefit from early venture capital, but it usually requires gates for incremental release, is less than $1-5M (some exceptions), has those expecting a return and vested ownership watching the farm along with the owner, and is typically finished in less than 10 years.

I doubt if Musk has any idea whether or not Tesla is self-sustaining; hope I'm wrong and I hope he's on top of it ... but I doubt it. Fundamentally, the battery technology and charging infrastructure isn't there to support the product. But Tesla is very forward thinking - probably just released before it could be sustained. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem.

But he also demonstrated innovation in bringing along Pay Pal (his bread-and-butter) and SpaceX is very forward thinking. SpaceX may become a viable alternative to NASA in the coming years ... another path to move space exploration to the free market. Right now they are symbiotic, but SpaceX can do things faster and for much less. Mainly because they can control the strength of their employee force (hire and fire) and be more agile (less red tape) than NASA. Although, SpaceX could just become the next bloated govt. contractor too (e.g., Lockheed Martin) that is slow and micro-managed by the govt.

The point is, involving govt. funding beyond the basic start-up phase is not effective. I've heard that supporting start ups is one thing that our dollars to bear fruit in.  But I've not researched any real data on whether it's true. The return for private investment would probably overcome govt. investment if the VCs didn't want so much ownership of innovations - there is middle ground but the current environment seems to work at the extremes.

The whole greed aspect of our fallen nature is what initiates the government to get involved in aspects of our lives. I KNOW that most on this site will dislike this statement, but I think it's the balancing point between PURE (Godly) conservatism and socialism. Define and ecosystem to include all aspects touched by an entity: financial, infrastructure, environment, workers, usefulness to economy, etc. The conservatives have to deal with the fact that some entities will not do what's best overall for an ecosystem and violation require external intervention to keep from harming ... our government is the external entity. For example, there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth while there are those who are living in poverty; those at the top could choose, on their own, to work the poverty problem. In fact, many do ... but many don't. Yes, there are many other issues regarding motivation of those living life at the bottom, but there is also an onus involved on those at the top.

But the socialists miss the point that once govt. gets involved, even if they start with pure altruistic intentions, control may / will eventually fall into a Marxists hands and be manipulated to control the people. The primary difference is between a distributed system and centralized control ... under human control, a system under centralized control can and will go wrong eventually. Once the government has control of something, you can't count on it staying altruistic because those at the helm will change and control will transfer. That's why the checks and balances of our constitution work so well: the Christian morals that set it up are invariant, the substance of the constitution is fairly stable (difficult to change), and the rule of law is subservient to the constitutional principles and the laws are subject to balance of power between the branches of government. 

The brand of liberalism that's on the market now is failed because it has no moral base. Their belief is that there is no true faith. Believe whatever you want ... essentially you are God. Good luck with that. Then you end up with things like save the whales, hug the trees, kill the babies. And my favorite ($#&!@*$) ... teach our children that they can choose their sex then get it changed.

So I've diverged from the post a little :-) ... Musk should get no subsidies for any of his existing businesses at this point as they are past the initial development phase and need to self-sustain. And his financial position allows him to self sustain his other initiatives without govt. investment ... to such a ridiculous level and in so many ways that I can't believe it's even a consideration.

Just a tip. Posts of this length do not get read.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

je_freedom

Here are the 10 RINOs who voted to impeach Trump on Jan. 13, 2021 - NEVER forget!
WY  Liz Cheney      SC 7  Tom Rice             WA 4  Dan Newhouse    IL 16  Adam Kinzinger    OH 16  Anthony Gonzalez
MI 6  Fred Upton    WA 3  Jaime Herrera Beutler    MI 3  Peter Meijer       NY 24  John Katko       CA 21  David Valadao

walkstall

A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Solar

Quote from: supsalemgr on June 10, 2017, 01:04:26 PM
Just a tip. Posts of this length do not get read.
Very true. With a post this long, it's best to capture your audience with summary in the first sentence including a compelling question, then proceed to explain the answer to your audience.
People like to know what they're getting into when it's this long because most don't have a lot of time to devote to the forum, which is why sometimes even a title helps grab your audience.
I admit, I only read the first paragraph which didn't capture my interest, though he was right, much of what I read had already been covered in this thread, I surmised from what little I read.
Sometimes several short posts work better. It's not so much what you say, but how concise one can say it. I fail in this department. :laugh:

This is not in anyway meant as an insult to the author, it's just your's and my experience combined that knows what recognizes the difference between a regular post, a good post, or a really great post, something that takes a Hell of a lot of work, which many times gets buried before someone distinguishes its greatness.
This may very well have been a good post, it simply didn't pique my interest.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

topside

Quote from: Solar on June 10, 2017, 02:03:37 PM
Very true. With a post this long, it's best to capture your audience with summary in the first sentence including a compelling question, then proceed to explain the answer to your audience.
People like to know what they're getting into when it's this long because most don't have a lot of time to devote to the forum, which is why sometimes even a title helps grab your audience.
I admit, I only read the first paragraph which didn't capture my interest, though he was right, much of what I read had already been covered in this thread, I surmised from what little I read.
Sometimes several short posts work better. It's not so much what you say, but how concise one can say it. I fail in this department. :laugh:

This is not in anyway meant as an insult to the author, it's just your's and my experience combined that knows what recognizes the difference between a regular post, a good post, or a really great post, something that takes a Hell of a lot of work, which many times gets buried before someone distinguishes its greatness.
This may very well have been a good post, it simply didn't pique my interest.

Comments noted - I've been long-winded several times and will adjust, going forward, to either reduce or summarize first. 

There is a dichotomy regarding basic conservative philosophy that I'm thinking through and was integrated into the long post. I expected some might pick up on it and skewer me a bit ... but then suggest alternative viewpoints that are helpful to the readers. I think it's a critical trade that isn't well-owned by most conservatives as far as I can tell and I'm trying to figure out what to do with it myself. If interested, start in the long post about half through with "The whole greed aspect ... "

quiller


Hoofer

Quote from: topside on June 10, 2017, 05:59:06 AM
There needs to be a national online Wall of Shame and a nice spot in the Smithsonian (which we also pay for) that identifies all the companies that the govt. dumped our taxpayer money in only for them to go out-of-business a few years later ... and the owners walk away with their wheel barrows full of our tax dollars. I can picture a poster for each that shows the company name and product, the owner smiling with a wheel-barrow of money, and print that shows it's duration (tombstone w/ start and fail dates), and print how much was invested. The president who was on duty during that time should go on there somewhere too.

Businesses propped up with funding like Musk's Tesla will never survive once the funding is pulled because the owners have no sense of what really makes it viable - never had to earn their stripes and develop the feel for what balances the cart. Musk was there at the right time when BO was in love with anti-fossil-fuel initiatives. I doubt if govt. funded startups ever sustain as there are those who send out the (our) money don't mind the farm.  Yes- some VC startups with a good plan and monitoring can benefit from early venture capital, but it usually requires gates for incremental release, is less than $1-5M (some exceptions), has those expecting a return and vested ownership watching the farm along with the owner, and is typically finished in less than 10 years.

I doubt if Musk has any idea whether or not Tesla is self-sustaining; hope I'm wrong and I hope he's on top of it ... but I doubt it. Fundamentally, the battery technology and charging infrastructure isn't there to support the product. But Tesla is very forward thinking - probably just released before it could be sustained. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem.

But he also demonstrated innovation in bringing along Pay Pal (his bread-and-butter) and SpaceX is very forward thinking. SpaceX may become a viable alternative to NASA in the coming years ... another path to move space exploration to the free market. Right now they are symbiotic, but SpaceX can do things faster and for much less. Mainly because they can control the strength of their employee force (hire and fire) and be more agile (less red tape) than NASA. Although, SpaceX could just become the next bloated govt. contractor too (e.g., Lockheed Martin) that is slow and micro-managed by the govt.

The point is, involving govt. funding beyond the basic start-up phase is not effective. I've heard that supporting start ups is one thing that our dollars to bear fruit in.  But I've not researched any real data on whether it's true. The return for private investment would probably overcome govt. investment if the VCs didn't want so much ownership of innovations - there is middle ground but the current environment seems to work at the extremes.

The whole greed aspect of our fallen nature is what initiates the government to get involved in aspects of our lives. I KNOW that most on this site will dislike this statement, but I think it's the balancing point between PURE (Godly) conservatism and socialism. Define and ecosystem to include all aspects touched by an entity: financial, infrastructure, environment, workers, usefulness to economy, etc. The conservatives have to deal with the fact that some entities will not do what's best overall for an ecosystem and violation require external intervention to keep from harming ... our government is the external entity. For example, there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth while there are those who are living in poverty; those at the top could choose, on their own, to work the poverty problem. In fact, many do ... but many don't. Yes, there are many other issues regarding motivation of those living life at the bottom, but there is also an onus involved on those at the top.

But the socialists miss the point that once govt. gets involved, even if they start with pure altruistic intentions, control may / will eventually fall into a Marxists hands and be manipulated to control the people. The primary difference is between a distributed system and centralized control ... under human control, a system under centralized control can and will go wrong eventually. Once the government has control of something, you can't count on it staying altruistic because those at the helm will change and control will transfer. That's why the checks and balances of our constitution work so well: the Christian morals that set it up are invariant, the substance of the constitution is fairly stable (difficult to change), and the rule of law is subservient to the constitutional principles and the laws are subject to balance of power between the branches of government. 

The brand of liberalism that's on the market now is failed because it has no moral base. Their belief is that there is no true faith. Believe whatever you want ... essentially you are God. Good luck with that. Then you end up with things like save the whales, hug the trees, kill the babies. And my favorite ($#&!@*$) ... teach our children that they can choose their sex then get it changed.

So I've diverged from the post a little :-) ... Musk should get no subsidies for any of his existing businesses at this point as they are past the initial development phase and need to self-sustain. And his financial position allows him to self sustain his other initiatives without govt. investment ... to such a ridiculous level and in so many ways that I can't believe it's even a consideration.

I read it - great post, and some well thought out points.  You and I seem to view Musk and the emergence of Telsa very similar, Musk being the opportunist, and Barak Obama being the financial enabler.   However, Musk should get no subsidies - ever.  If your idea is worthwhile, it will be invested in by private individuals/companies - the government is the kiss-of-death.

We definitely part company with this liberal nonsense, "...there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth..." - which paints a false picture of a mattress stuffed with dollars, McDuck's room piled high with gold & silver - BS.  Quite frankly, the people who are hoarding wealth are those exchanging dollars for gold & silver as a hedge against inflation, or whatever excuse.  That "money" is not an investment that "helps" any poor person, provides employment or leads anyone else to financial independence.   Just listen to those commercials, filled with tales of the next market crash, like a deflating balloon, "what goes up, must come down", etc., like the markets are somehow governed by "gravity".

Seriously, ponder the price of an IPhone or any other device needing Silver / Gold - how much CHEAPER it would be, without hoarders keeping the price of these metals UP!   I've worked for and grew up among some well known, wealthy people - they invested everything in vehicles that benefited both themselves and were quite generous to "invest" in things to help the less fortunate.  I'm trying really hard to think of just one of them... who didn't lose money on a business venture, sorry, they all took risks and lost money.

Would you employ a Butler & Maid, if you had the means?   Hire them from a slum or an impoverished country?  Take people with ZERO marketable skills, pay for their training, and bring them into your household - becoming responsible for them (they are adults).  Wealthy people do that - give less fortunate people a change.  They have a saying, "Wealth ends in the next generation, unless it's managed wisely."

Back to the main point - IMO, government is the greatest destroyer of the entrepreneurial spirit.   Government prevents businesses from ever getting off the ground.
All animals are created equal; Some just take longer to cook.   Survival is keeping an eye on those around you...

Solar

#27
Quote from: topside on June 10, 2017, 03:46:22 PM
Comments noted - I've been long-winded several times and will adjust, going forward, to either reduce or summarize first. 

There is a dichotomy regarding basic conservative philosophy that I'm thinking through and was integrated into the long post. I expected some might pick up on it and skewer me a bit ... but then suggest alternative viewpoints that are helpful to the readers. I think it's a critical trade that isn't well-owned by most conservatives as far as I can tell and I'm trying to figure out what to do with it myself. If interested, start in the long post about half through with "The whole greed aspect ... "
OK.

Quote from: topside on June 10, 2017, 05:59:06 AM
There needs to be a national online Wall of Shame and a nice spot in the Smithsonian (which we also pay for) that identifies all the companies that the govt. dumped our taxpayer money in only for them to go out-of-business a few years later ... and the owners walk away with their wheel barrows full of our tax dollars. I can picture a poster for each that shows the company name and product, the owner smiling with a wheel-barrow of money, and print that shows it's duration (tombstone w/ start and fail dates), and print how much was invested. The president who was on duty during that time should go on there somewhere too.

Businesses propped up with funding like Musk's Tesla will never survive once the funding is pulled because the owners have no sense of what really makes it viable - never had to earn their stripes and develop the feel for what balances the cart. Musk was there at the right time when BO was in love with anti-fossil-fuel initiatives. I doubt if govt. funded startups ever sustain as there are those who send out the (our) money don't mind the farm.  Yes- some VC startups with a good plan and monitoring can benefit from early venture capital, but it usually requires gates for incremental release, is less than $1-5M (some exceptions), has those expecting a return and vested ownership watching the farm along with the owner, and is typically finished in less than 10 years.

I doubt if Musk has any idea whether or not Tesla is self-sustaining; hope I'm wrong and I hope he's on top of it ... but I doubt it. Fundamentally, the battery technology and charging infrastructure isn't there to support the product. But Tesla is very forward thinking - probably just released before it could be sustained. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem.
I'll start here. Musk/Tesla isn't alone in his vision, he's supported by other major corporations, Ford, Microshaft, several battery manufactures, mining interests and the list goes on.
They're all interested in taxpayer backing because, with the govt on the hook for backing, it virtually guarantees success through monopolized Legislation picking winners and killing off the little guy.
Here's what they have in mind, and it all ties into the "Smart Meter", that should tell you how long this has been in the planning stages.

They plan on replacing the gas engine with an electric grid, one that charges the car as it moves, batteries as it leaves the grid, charging at home overnight, all this, while the govt tracks your every move.
Like the Internet, the govt can literally shut you down at any moment, take away your ability of free movement. An uprising against Govt in Az? Govt shuts down the grid, cuts off your ability to move people.
There is sooo much more to the equation, but you get the idea and why we need to stop the "Green" movement, it has nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with control over the masses in removing our Freedom and Liberty.
That was the idea behind the global warming move, controlling energy output, make our sole source of energy morally wrong, kill the evil coal and fossil fuel industry and introduce solar (insert smiling sun, butterflies and children playing happily), manipulate the next generation into believing gasolind driven cars and those who own them as the enemy.


QuoteBut he also demonstrated innovation in bringing along Pay Pal (his bread-and-butter) and SpaceX is very forward thinking. SpaceX may become a viable alternative to NASA in the coming years ... another path to move space exploration to the free market. Right now they are symbiotic, but SpaceX can do things faster and for much less. Mainly because they can control the strength of their employee force (hire and fire) and be more agile (less red tape) than NASA. Although, SpaceX could just become the next bloated govt. contractor too (e.g., Lockheed Martin) that is slow and micro-managed by the govt.

The point is, involving govt. funding beyond the basic start-up phase is not effective. I've heard that supporting start ups is one thing that our dollars to bear fruit in.  But I've not researched any real data on whether it's true. The return for private investment would probably overcome govt. investment if the VCs didn't want so much ownership of innovations - there is middle ground but the current environment seems to work at the extremes.

Beyond tourism, what will SpaceX do? Why is it essential to the security of the nation? Nasa was pretty much given the green light in the space race against the Russians, we landed on the moon and won.
Beyond military applications, NASA has no business being involved in private industry, beyond it being another dark hole for Congress to funnel money to its supporters as in payoffs and bribes.
If SpaceX wants to fly, they can do it like all other young startups did, by using private investors.


QuoteThe whole greed aspect of our fallen nature is what initiates the government to get involved in aspects of our lives. I KNOW that most on this site will dislike this statement, but I think it's the balancing point between PURE (Godly) conservatism and socialism. Define and ecosystem to include all aspects touched by an entity: financial, infrastructure, environment, workers, usefulness to economy, etc. The conservatives have to deal with the fact that some entities will not do what's best overall for an ecosystem and violation require external intervention to keep from harming ... our government is the external entity. For example, there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth while there are those who are living in poverty; those at the top could choose, on their own, to work the poverty problem. In fact, many do ... but many don't. Yes, there are many other issues regarding motivation of those living life at the bottom, but there is also an onus involved on those at the top.

Maybe this analogy will help you see that govt has grown way beyond the binds our Founders placed on the Godless structure.
Just imagine if govt had taken sides in the auto industry, pitted the buggy industry against Henry Ford, used environmental laws to stifle his growth, the Commerce Clause to tie his hands at moving product across state lines, or export abroad?
Point being, Government has crossed the line of regulation and moved to choosing what it deems "Good For Society", something the people as a whole used to do through the free mkt.

OOOPs, I missed the rest of the paragraph.
Quoteusefulness to economy, etc.
"usefulness to economy"? What has that to do with Free mkt principles?

QuoteThe conservatives have to deal with the fact that some entities will not do what's best overall for an ecosystem and violation require external intervention to keep from harming ... our government is the external entity. For example, there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth while there are those who are living in poverty; those at the top could choose, on their own, to work the poverty problem. In fact, many do ... but many don't. Yes, there are many other issues regarding motivation of those living life at the bottom, but there is also an onus involved on those at the top.

So what? Where does govt have the right to tell you or I what to do with our money, how we invest or who we exploit, or help to further our goals?
Govt is actually a hindrance when monetary growth is concerned, by using banking regulations to micro manipulate the economy, in how we invest, hoard or spend money.
Again, to grasp this line of thinking more clearly, giving one an ability to toss out the pap and filler of govt intervention, one must read and digest the Federalist Papers and the Constitution.

QuoteBut the socialists miss the point that once govt. gets involved, even if they start with pure altruistic intentions, control may / will eventually fall into a Marxists hands and be manipulated to control the people. The primary difference is between a distributed system and centralized control ... under human control, a system under centralized control can and will go wrong eventually. Once the government has control of something, you can't count on it staying altruistic because those at the helm will change and control will transfer. That's why the checks and balances of our constitution work so well: the Christian morals that set it up are invariant, the substance of the constitution is fairly stable (difficult to change), and the rule of law is subservient to the constitutional principles and the laws are subject to balance of power between the branches of government. 

The brand of liberalism that's on the market now is failed because it has no moral base. Their belief is that there is no true faith. Believe whatever you want ... essentially you are God. Good luck with that. Then you end up with things like save the whales, hug the trees, kill the babies. And my favorite ($#&!@*$) ... teach our children that they can choose their sex then get it changed.

So I've diverged from the post a little :-) ... Musk should get no subsidies for any of his existing businesses at this point as they are past the initial development phase and need to self-sustain. And his financial position allows him to self sustain his other initiatives without govt. investment ... to such a ridiculous level and in so many ways that I can't believe it's even a consideration.
Whether Musk believes in the Green movement or not, I have no idea, but what he does believe in, is finding ways to get taxpayer dollars and the commie Green movement was the very teat he latched on to.
This option needs to be severed, the govt teats need to be removed, it has no business in business, period!
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

supsalemgr

Quote from: Hoofer on June 11, 2017, 06:01:37 AM
I read it - great post, and some well thought out points.  You and I seem to view Musk and the emergence of Telsa very similar, Musk being the opportunist, and Barak Obama being the financial enabler.   However, Musk should get no subsidies - ever.  If your idea is worthwhile, it will be invested in by private individuals/companies - the government is the kiss-of-death.

We definitely part company with this liberal nonsense, "...there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth..." - which paints a false picture of a mattress stuffed with dollars, McDuck's room piled high with gold & silver - BS.  Quite frankly, the people who are hoarding wealth are those exchanging dollars for gold & silver as a hedge against inflation, or whatever excuse.  That "money" is not an investment that "helps" any poor person, provides employment or leads anyone else to financial independence.   Just listen to those commercials, filled with tales of the next market crash, like a deflating balloon, "what goes up, must come down", etc., like the markets are somehow governed by "gravity".

Seriously, ponder the price of an IPhone or any other device needing Silver / Gold - how much CHEAPER it would be, without hoarders keeping the price of these metals UP!   I've worked for and grew up among some well known, wealthy people - they invested everything in vehicles that benefited both themselves and were quite generous to "invest" in things to help the less fortunate.  I'm trying really hard to think of just one of them... who didn't lose money on a business venture, sorry, they all took risks and lost money.

Would you employ a Butler & Maid, if you had the means?   Hire them from a slum or an impoverished country?  Take people with ZERO marketable skills, pay for their training, and bring them into your household - becoming responsible for them (they are adults).  Wealthy people do that - give less fortunate people a change.  They have a saying, "Wealth ends in the next generation, unless it's managed wisely."

Back to the main point - IMO, government is the greatest destroyer of the entrepreneurial spirit.   Government prevents businesses from ever getting off the ground.

Another ripoff of the government are farm subsidies. Foreign companies are buying up American farmland and cashing in on these subsidies by the US government.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

topside

Quote from: Hoofer on June 11, 2017, 06:01:37 AM
I read it - great post, and some well thought out points.  You and I seem to view Musk and the emergence of Telsa very similar, Musk being the opportunist, and Barak Obama being the financial enabler.   However, Musk should get no subsidies - ever.  If your idea is worthwhile, it will be invested in by private individuals/companies - the government is the kiss-of-death.

We definitely part company with this liberal nonsense, "...there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth..." - which paints a false picture of a mattress stuffed with dollars, McDuck's room piled high with gold & silver - BS.  Quite frankly, the people who are hoarding wealth are those exchanging dollars for gold & silver as a hedge against inflation, or whatever excuse.  That "money" is not an investment that "helps" any poor person, provides employment or leads anyone else to financial independence.   Just listen to those commercials, filled with tales of the next market crash, like a deflating balloon, "what goes up, must come down", etc., like the markets are somehow governed by "gravity".

Seriously, ponder the price of an IPhone or any other device needing Silver / Gold - how much CHEAPER it would be, without hoarders keeping the price of these metals UP!   I've worked for and grew up among some well known, wealthy people - they invested everything in vehicles that benefited both themselves and were quite generous to "invest" in things to help the less fortunate.  I'm trying really hard to think of just one of them... who didn't lose money on a business venture, sorry, they all took risks and lost money.

Would you employ a Butler & Maid, if you had the means?   Hire them from a slum or an impoverished country?  Take people with ZERO marketable skills, pay for their training, and bring them into your household - becoming responsible for them (they are adults).  Wealthy people do that - give less fortunate people a change.  They have a saying, "Wealth ends in the next generation, unless it's managed wisely."

Back to the main point - IMO, government is the greatest destroyer of the entrepreneurial spirit.   Government prevents businesses from ever getting off the ground.

I have also seen many who did well share there wealth.

The full statement I made was:

QuoteFor example, there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth while there are those who are living in poverty; those at the top could choose, on their own, to work the poverty problem.

Yes, it has aspects of lib lunacy, but there is a kernel that isn't lined up well.

I chose poverty of the nation just as an example to talk about - there are other similar examples. The point was that poverty in our nation could be addressed without the governments "help" ... the government seems to enable more than help and the effectiveness is highly in question and I believe that the Marxists use helping the impoverished as a lever. But the wealthy don't solve the problem on their own for some reason. Hoarding was a poor choice in words as there is a litany of reasons why the wealthy don't solve it. Some may just choose not to help this issue Some may not help just because they don't see a mechanism to reach to those who really need help.

But the point is, because the citizens of the nation who could help resolve this problem (and others) can't or don't, then the only remaining options that I see is either let the issue continue without relief or use our government to take action. It is well known (at least to most on this forum) that government action tends to corruptions - so that's not even a choice. So what's left?

Here's what I think. I believe that private organizations could amass a consortium to attack the problem and it would be much more efficient than the government. The primary motivating problem is that dealing with the poor is messy and not typically lucrative. A simple ROI calculation would persuade you to invest somewhere else. But there are local altruistic measures taken on a sparse basis and these could be assessed to find the best examples to use. A national company could be encouraged - maybe voted in by some mechanism - to distribute actively addressing poverty at local levels on a distributed basis ... then checking that corruption isn't happening. I know this has holes - but are there any better ideas? I hope so.   

Onto Solar's post later ... after I get a few things done around here.