Quote:
|
Would you rather pay American firms to deliver cargo and eventually astronaughts, or pay the Russians? SpaceX is getting paid to develop services. Sounds like capitalism to me.
|
That's an easy answer. But you are opening a topic where you are probably not well informed.
When someone who was the largest campaign contributor to the POTUS then receives gov't funding that is not available to other American firms that is not really capitalism. I call it favoritism.
Do you realize that SpaceX has been given an exception from the Gov't shutdown, and they are back at work getting ready for their next launch, while other space launch companies (contractors, not gov't employees) are shutdown. That strikes me as puzzling --- or maybe not. There have been substantial performance issues with SpaceX launches, but they are never disclosed by our gov't, yet if a Boeing or Lockheed Martin rocket had issues, it would be widely known and those contractors would be taking heat. Our gov't isn't really supposed to be picking winners and losers are they? Isn't this supposed to be a free market economy?
Without turning this into a PARF thread, this is one reason why Tesla attacts attention, and why some look at their questionable accounting practices and product issues with a critical eye.
Don't get me wrong, I admire Musk's ingenuity and his business savvy. I also admire Madonna for her business acumen, not her music. You won't find me at a Madonna concert, and you won't find me behind the wheel as Tesla owner. In one case it's because I don't like the product (her music), in the other case I don't support the uneven playing field, even though I admire Musk's ability to manipulate the market segment.