Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Ron Paul: Crony capitalism must be fought off by embracing socialism and ending privatization of government functions   ( foxnews.com) divider line
    More: Weird, United States Department of Defense, SpaceX, National Defense Authorization Act, SpaceX CEO Elon, United States presidential election, 2008, Democratic Party, Republican Party, United States Senate Committee on Armed Services  
•       •       •

1592 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Sep 2017 at 3:50 PM (32 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-12 01:25:13 PM  
That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.
 
2017-09-12 01:33:41 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2017-09-12 02:13:52 PM  

Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.


Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?
 
2017-09-12 03:19:22 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?


Did space X emerge fully formed as the only company capable of handling this job or did it systematically buy out competitors or drove them to bankruptcy? If they are the big winner, who da fark is RON PAUL to want to change that through government action?. Sooner or later, some other company may emerge to challenge them. Sure, space X seems to have an unassailable position, but so did Blockbuster before Netflix came along. Monopolies happen in capitalism and sometimes they go away on their own.

What happened to RON PAUL? he used to be a real libertarian... now, he may as well be Bernie Sanders.
 
2017-09-12 03:21:09 PM  

kbronsito: Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?

Did space X emerge fully formed as the only company capable of handling this job or did it systematically buy out competitors or drove them to bankruptcy? If they are the big winner, who da fark is RON PAUL to want to change that through government action?. Sooner or later, some other company may emerge to challenge them. Sure, space X seems to have an unassailable position, but so did Blockbuster before Netflix came along. Monopolies happen in capitalism and sometimes they go away on their own.

What happened to RON PAUL? he used to be a real libertarian... now, he may as well be Bernie Sanders.


Have you ever seen them
together?
 
2017-09-12 03:21:18 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?


Just because his ideas are stupid doesn't mean that we need to check our reading comprehension at the door. What he's complaining about is, in his mind, a state-created monopoly. Whether or not that's a dumb complaint for a libertarian to have (which it is), he's not "embracing socialism" or somehow against privatization like the dumbass submitter is saying. He's very specifically advocating privatization. At least in the case where we don't buddy up to our bestest pals the Russians.
 
2017-09-12 03:41:38 PM  

Cagey B: Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?

Just because his ideas are stupid doesn't mean that we need to check our reading comprehension at the door. What he's complaining about is, in his mind, a state-created monopoly. Whether or not that's a dumb complaint for a libertarian to have (which it is), he's not "embracing socialism" or somehow against privatization like the dumbass submitter is saying. He's very specifically advocating privatization. At least in the case where we don't buddy up to our bestest pals the Russians.


But it's not state run monopoly, SpaceX is a contractor who won the bid.

There are still several major aerospace companies out there.

I am not sure where he is getting the idea that the government is only going to spaceX
 
2017-09-12 03:49:14 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-12 03:54:08 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: kbronsito: Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?

Did space X emerge fully formed as the only company capable of handling this job or did it systematically buy out competitors or drove them to bankruptcy? If they are the big winner, who da fark is RON PAUL to want to change that through government action?. Sooner or later, some other company may emerge to challenge them. Sure, space X seems to have an unassailable position, but so did Blockbuster before Netflix came along. Monopolies happen in capitalism and sometimes they go away on their own.

What happened to RON PAUL? he used to be a real libertarian... now, he may as well be Bernie Sanders.

Have you ever seen them
together?


rule 34
 
2017-09-12 03:56:52 PM  

kbronsito: Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?

Did space X emerge fully formed as the only company capable of handling this job or did it systematically buy out competitors or drove them to bankruptcy? If they are the big winner, who da fark is RON PAUL to want to change that through government action?. Sooner or later, some other company may emerge to challenge them. Sure, space X seems to have an unassailable position, but so did Blockbuster before Netflix came along. Monopolies happen in capitalism and sometimes they go away on their own.

What happened to RON PAUL? he used to be a real libertarian... now, he may as well be Bernie Sanders.


As far as I know Space X hasn't  bought anyone out or driven anyone out of business.
 
2017-09-12 03:57:17 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?

Just because his ideas are stupid doesn't mean that we need to check our reading comprehension at the door. What he's complaining about is, in his mind, a state-created monopoly. Whether or not that's a dumb complaint for a libertarian to have (which it is), he's not "embracing socialism" or somehow against privatization like the dumbass submitter is saying. He's very specifically advocating privatization. At least in the case where we don't buddy up to our bestest pals the Russians.

But it's not state run monopoly, SpaceX is a contractor who won the bid.

There are still several major aerospace companies out there.

I am not sure where he is getting the idea that the government is only going to spaceX


img.fark.netView Full Size
There is only one:  United Launch Alliance
 
2017-09-12 03:58:36 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: kbronsito: Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?

Did space X emerge fully formed as the only company capable of handling this job or did it systematically buy out competitors or drove them to bankruptcy? If they are the big winner, who da fark is RON PAUL to want to change that through government action?. Sooner or later, some other company may emerge to challenge them. Sure, space X seems to have an unassailable position, but so did Blockbuster before Netflix came along. Monopolies happen in capitalism and sometimes they go away on their own.

What happened to RON PAUL? he used to be a real libertarian... now, he may as well be Bernie Sanders.

Have you ever seen them
together?


Sounds like a real lemon party.

What? Two bitter old men. Lemon party. Lemons are bitter. Like the two of them. Get it?

Where's everyone going?
 
2017-09-12 03:59:18 PM  

kbronsito: Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?

Did space X emerge fully formed as the only company capable of handling this job or did it systematically buy out competitors or drove them to bankruptcy? If they are the big winner, who da fark is RON PAUL to want to change that through government action?. Sooner or later, some other company may emerge to challenge them. Sure, space X seems to have an unassailable position, but so did Blockbuster before Netflix came along. Monopolies happen in capitalism and sometimes they go away on their own.

What happened to RON PAUL? he used to be a real libertarian... now, he may as well be Bernie Sanders.


Actually, the so called "competition" is a monopoly created out of the remaining competition (spacex was still trying to get into space at that point) and handed a billion dollar a year subsidy (everyone insists it isn't a subsidy, typically requiring lies about what ULA does for said billion).
/said to be so ULA can launch "any" mission
//except that ULA doesn't always bid on DoD/NASA missions
///but look over there, Spacex is the *real* socialism, not our precious military-industrial -complex
/V If you don't want space socialized, don't let the DoD/NASA launch rockets.
 
2017-09-12 03:59:55 PM  
There is no ULA? no Blue Origins or the other one (why am I drawing a blank)
 
2017-09-12 04:00:41 PM  
Somewhere along the line, I stopped being a Ron Paul and Gary Johnson fan.
 
2017-09-12 04:01:24 PM  

Saiga410: Darth_Lukecash: kbronsito: Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?

Did space X emerge fully formed as the only company capable of handling this job or did it systematically buy out competitors or drove them to bankruptcy? If they are the big winner, who da fark is RON PAUL to want to change that through government action?. Sooner or later, some other company may emerge to challenge them. Sure, space X seems to have an unassailable position, but so did Blockbuster before Netflix came along. Monopolies happen in capitalism and sometimes they go away on their own.

What happened to RON PAUL? he used to be a real libertarian... now, he may as well be Bernie Sanders.

Have you ever seen them
together?

rule 34


*twitch*

*vomit*

Fark is NOT your personal erotica site, man.
 
2017-09-12 04:03:50 PM  
Wow - the irony is unbelievable.  SpaceX is managing to break an actual state created monopoly on government launch services (United Launch Alliance - a consortium of Boeing and Lockheed formed in 2006), and didn't even use a US engine to do it.  As a side effect, the lack of competition, and thus innovation, effectively priced the US out of the commercial satellite launch industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition
 
2017-09-12 04:06:12 PM  
"NDAA expressly forbids the Air Force from developing new launch vehicles by restricting expenditures to the development of new engines or the modification of existing systems"

I didn't realize that was something the Air Force did, thought they bought/contracted for that stuff. I think ending our reliance on Russia is a good thing. Spacex seems to be doing a great job of getting us there for far less money than ULA.  What's his beef? Money not going to his preferred pork barrel manufacturer?
 
2017-09-12 04:06:35 PM  

Saiga410: Darth_Lukecash: kbronsito: Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?

Did space X emerge fully formed as the only company capable of handling this job or did it systematically buy out competitors or drove them to bankruptcy? If they are the big winner, who da fark is RON PAUL to want to change that through government action?. Sooner or later, some other company may emerge to challenge them. Sure, space X seems to have an unassailable position, but so did Blockbuster before Netflix came along. Monopolies happen in capitalism and sometimes they go away on their own.

What happened to RON PAUL? he used to be a real libertarian... now, he may as well be Bernie Sanders.

Have you ever seen them
together?

rule 34


Wow.

Nicely done, man. I'm legitimately skeeved out.
 
2017-09-12 04:06:39 PM  
I do not mean to suggest that Senator McCain is helping start a new Cold War to receive donations from SpaceX. Anyone who knows John McCain knows he does not need financial incentives to promote a belligerent foreign policy.

Whoa Ron's testing out some open mic night material
 
2017-09-12 04:07:08 PM  
He's still alive?  oh.  huh.
 
2017-09-12 04:07:14 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: Wow - the irony is unbelievable.  SpaceX is managing to break an actual state created monopoly on government launch services (United Launch Alliance - a consortium of Boeing and Lockheed formed in 2006, and dependent lately on Russian engines) and didn't even use a US engine to do it.  As a side effect, the lack of competition, and thus innovation, effectively priced the US out of the commercial satellite launch industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition


Heh - just re-parsed my second sentence and it didn't quite say what I intended
 
2017-09-12 04:08:48 PM  

mcreadyblue: Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?

Just because his ideas are stupid doesn't mean that we need to check our reading comprehension at the door. What he's complaining about is, in his mind, a state-created monopoly. Whether or not that's a dumb complaint for a libertarian to have (which it is), he's not "embracing socialism" or somehow against privatization like the dumbass submitter is saying. He's very specifically advocating privatization. At least in the case where we don't buddy up to our bestest pals the Russians.

But it's not state run monopoly, SpaceX is a contractor who won the bid.

There are still several major aerospace companies out there.

I am not sure where he is getting the idea that the government is only going to spaceX

[img.fark.net image 425x639]There is only one:  United Launch Alliance


No! It should be Allied Astronaut Alliance! That way it has three As!
 
2017-09-12 04:12:31 PM  
FTA: "the most common hiding place for corporate welfare is the Pentagon"

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-12 04:18:32 PM  
Nice try, Ron.  Back into the box.
 
2017-09-12 04:18:45 PM  

Bowen: Darth_Lukecash: kbronsito: Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?

Did space X emerge fully formed as the only company capable of handling this job or did it systematically buy out competitors or drove them to bankruptcy? If they are the big winner, who da fark is RON PAUL to want to change that through government action?. Sooner or later, some other company may emerge to challenge them. Sure, space X seems to have an unassailable position, but so did Blockbuster before Netflix came along. Monopolies happen in capitalism and sometimes they go away on their own.

What happened to RON PAUL? he used to be a real libertarian... now, he may as well be Bernie Sanders.

Have you ever seen them
together?

Sounds like a real lemon party.

What? Two bitter old men. Lemon party. Lemons are bitter. Like the two of them. Get it?

Where's everyone going?


Lemons are sour, not bitter.
 
hej
2017-09-12 04:18:57 PM  
Time to dust off all your tired old memes from a decade ago...
 
2017-09-12 04:21:12 PM  
Welp, that didn't take long.  SpaceX successfully launched a top-secret Air Force payload a few days ago (just in time before the hurricane), pretty well obliterating the stated rationale for Congress' standing contract with ULA (better known as Lockheed and Boeing).  ULA's lobbyists must be desperate - they're flinging anything, just to go on the offensive, because they know they can't win by playing defense.

Just a few months ago the party line at ULA was "SpaceX?  Those guys are deluded, their technology will never work and they'll never be able to compete with us."    Suddenly SpaceX is a monopoly?

(I have to admit I almost agree - SpaceX is poised to dominate the market.  Mostly because established players like ULA sat on their fat asses and did nothing while SpaceX innovated.  The big boys will need years to catch up.  At this point, the main uncertainty as far as market share is, will Blue Origin be successful too?)
 
2017-09-12 04:23:22 PM  

Cagey B: Just because his ideas are stupid doesn't mean that we need to check our reading comprehension at the door. What he's complaining about is, in his mind, a state-created monopoly. Whether or not that's a dumb complaint for a libertarian to have


That's a dumb comment for anyone to have, unless they can point out how SpaceX has a 'state-created monopoly'.   Did Congress outlaw competitors to SpaceX?  Was there some other company they barred from sending up rockets?

SpaceX has the exact same monopoly on space travel that Marconi had on radio or Bell had on telephones.  It's not government created, they just got there first and no one has caught up yet.
 
2017-09-12 04:23:34 PM  

hej: Time to dust off all your tired old memes from a decade ago...


Ron Paul is a tired old meme from a decade ago.
 
2017-09-12 04:25:02 PM  
cdn.quotesgram.comView Full Size
 
2017-09-12 04:31:01 PM  

bluefoxicy: Somewhere along the line, I stopped being a Ron Paul and Gary Johnson fan.


I too once turned 15.
 
2017-09-12 04:31:20 PM  

bluefoxicy: Somewhere along the line, I stopped being a Ron Paul and Gary Johnson fan.


For me it was when I started reading his actual policy positions.  Same with Ron Paul.  It was nice to have a third party...but once you started reading what he was actually all about...yeah, it fell apart really quickly.
 
2017-09-12 04:34:22 PM  
Subby's headline may not be accurate, but that article by Ron Paul is farking idiotic. It's so bad I don't even have the time to break it all down...

I'll just say that Ron Paul is stupidly claiming some sort of socialist monopoly is being created in the form of SpaceX..... because they've outcompeted the military-industrialist companies who banded together to form ULA so they could have an actual monopoly and charge utterly exhorbitant rates for launches - and use Russian parts to do it, which is potentially problematic for several reasons.

SpaceX then dumped a bunch of cash into R&D, and created a product to outcompete the traditional crony defense contractors, and inspired other companies to follow in their footsteps. In doing so they have lowered the price for access to space, developed new launch capability, and created an American company to rely on for American space needs using American parts.

And to do it they had to take the government to court a couple times so they'd stop awarding contracts to the traditional defense contractor graft-pile and blowing SpaceX's better priced services off.

So..... as usual.... fark off Ron Paul.
 
2017-09-12 04:38:04 PM  

Karac: Cagey B: Just because his ideas are stupid doesn't mean that we need to check our reading comprehension at the door. What he's complaining about is, in his mind, a state-created monopoly. Whether or not that's a dumb complaint for a libertarian to have

That's a dumb comment for anyone to have, unless they can point out how SpaceX has a 'state-created monopoly'.   Did Congress outlaw competitors to SpaceX?  Was there some other company they barred from sending up rockets?

SpaceX has the exact same monopoly on space travel that Marconi had on radio or Bell had on telephones.  It's not government created, they just got there first and no one has caught up yet.


Part of the problem is that space launch is for several reasons - it requires huge amounts of capital to run, long development cycles on the supply side, long procurement cycles on the demand side, all within a comparatively limited total $-for-launches economy - a natural oligarchy at best: the minimum size of a player is not insignificant compared to the size of the whole market.

Whaddya do? It's not like they conspired to make earth's gravity well a biatch.

Unfortunately the alternatives to the combustion rocket deadend - ground launch infrastructure or nuclear drives - have even huger capital costs.
 
2017-09-12 04:39:29 PM  
Ron Paul is still alive?
 
2017-09-12 04:53:41 PM  

erik-k: Karac: Cagey B: Just because his ideas are stupid doesn't mean that we need to check our reading comprehension at the door. What he's complaining about is, in his mind, a state-created monopoly. Whether or not that's a dumb complaint for a libertarian to have

That's a dumb comment for anyone to have, unless they can point out how SpaceX has a 'state-created monopoly'.   Did Congress outlaw competitors to SpaceX?  Was there some other company they barred from sending up rockets?

SpaceX has the exact same monopoly on space travel that Marconi had on radio or Bell had on telephones.  It's not government created, they just got there first and no one has caught up yet.

Part of the problem is that space launch is for several reasons - it requires huge amounts of capital to run, long development cycles on the supply side, long procurement cycles on the demand side, all within a comparatively limited total $-for-launches economy - a natural oligarchy at best: the minimum size of a player is not insignificant compared to the size of the whole market.

Whaddya do? It's not like they conspired to make earth's gravity well a biatch.

Unfortunately the alternatives to the combustion rocket deadend - ground launch infrastructure or nuclear drives - have even huger capital costs.


For the costs of all of our favorite national entertainment multi-generational wars we could be the proud owners of a Mag-Lev Rail launch system and routinely having space-faring businesses.

Don't blame the markets. Blame the conservatives that turned their eyes to profits and looked inward. Space travel is cheap compared to subsidizing multi-billion-dollar corporations to keep blowing ups bits of our planet for no reason.
 
2017-09-12 04:55:32 PM  

bluefoxicy: Somewhere along the line, I stopped being a Ron Paul and Gary Johnson fan.


There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old life: the Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. -John Rogers
 
2017-09-12 04:56:17 PM  

manunkind: bluefoxicy: Somewhere along the line, I stopped being a Ron Paul and Gary Johnson fan.

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old boys life: the Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. -John Rogers


Stupid cellphone typing...
 
2017-09-12 04:57:24 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?


Even Ayn Rand collected social security.
 
2017-09-12 05:01:33 PM  

Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.


But of course a Republican thinks we should be buying Russian rocket engines.

Of course.

Of course.
 
2017-09-12 05:04:50 PM  

kbronsito: Darth_Lukecash: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

Nope.

This is what Ron Paul wanted.

He failed to note that his libertarian ideals of unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies.

So now he's asking for regulations?

Did space X emerge fully formed as the only company capable of handling this job or did it systematically buy out competitors or drove them to bankruptcy? If they are the big winner, who da fark is RON PAUL to want to change that through government action?. Sooner or later, some other company may emerge to challenge them. Sure, space X seems to have an unassailable position, but so did Blockbuster before Netflix came along. Monopolies happen in capitalism and sometimes they go away on their own.

What happened to RON PAUL? he used to be a real libertarian... now, he may as well be Bernie Sanders.


Sad to say (as an ex-Libertarian) the LP sold out many years ago, hook, line, and sinker. They are now a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries, and in the pockets of the crony capitalists and One Percenters..
 
2017-09-12 05:05:28 PM  

erik-k: Karac: Cagey B: Just because his ideas are stupid doesn't mean that we need to check our reading comprehension at the door. What he's complaining about is, in his mind, a state-created monopoly. Whether or not that's a dumb complaint for a libertarian to have

That's a dumb comment for anyone to have, unless they can point out how SpaceX has a 'state-created monopoly'.   Did Congress outlaw competitors to SpaceX?  Was there some other company they barred from sending up rockets?

SpaceX has the exact same monopoly on space travel that Marconi had on radio or Bell had on telephones.  It's not government created, they just got there first and no one has caught up yet.

Part of the problem is that space launch is for several reasons - it requires huge amounts of capital to run, long development cycles on the supply side, long procurement cycles on the demand side, all within a comparatively limited total $-for-launches economy - a natural oligarchy at best: the minimum size of a player is not insignificant compared to the size of the whole market.

Whaddya do? It's not like they conspired to make earth's gravity well a biatch.

Unfortunately the alternatives to the combustion rocket deadend - ground launch infrastructure or nuclear drives - have even huger capital costs.


Why don't we just switch to using a Bondi negative gravitational mass propulsion system?
 
2017-09-12 05:11:53 PM  

Harlee: Cagey B: That's not even close to what RON PAUL is saying, submitter.

I'll be nice and stop short of calling you an illiterate f*ckwit because the reader does have to parse through a lot of the standard RON PAUL wharrgarbl to get to his actual point, which is that he thinks that we should keep buying Russian rockets and if we don't we should have more companies competing for the contract to develop new launch capabilities instead of relying on SpaceX.

But of course a Republican thinks we should be buying Russian rocket engines.

Of course.

Of course.


Yup. "Pentagon brass are correct in that this protectionist provision should be removed from the NDAA. It poisons relations between the U.S. and Russia to benefit one company." Sure, buddy. That's what's poisoning our relationship with Russia.
 
2017-09-12 05:18:29 PM  
Isn't spaceX using Russian rockets under all the make up?
 
2017-09-12 05:18:36 PM  
What Ron Paul is saying is that he wants to stop crony capitalism ONLY when it involves a company that is owned by a more liberal minded owner.
 
2017-09-12 05:28:26 PM  

fortheloveof: Isn't spaceX using Russian rockets under all the make up?


No, they build their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_%28rocket_engine_family%29
 
2017-09-12 05:55:07 PM  

ccsears: Lemons are sour, not bitter.


Not the white part.
 
2017-09-12 07:08:49 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: fortheloveof: Isn't spaceX using Russian rockets under all the make up?

No, they build their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_%28rocket_engine_family%29


Thank you, I thought they had started with some base Russian stuff at one point (not that using a base technology to build better is a bad starting point), but I must have gotten them confused with someone else.
 
2017-09-12 07:13:30 PM  

fortheloveof: Lamberts Ho Man: fortheloveof: Isn't spaceX using Russian rockets under all the make up?

No, they build their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_%28rocket_engine_family%29

Thank you, I thought they had started with some base Russian stuff at one point (not that using a base technology to build better is a bad starting point), but I must have gotten them confused with someone else.


You're thinking of North Korea. It's an easy mistake to make.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report