NASA is too bloated and corrupted. What better way for the WH's to track BH's than to have an asset who Controls the Satellites as opposed to who once controlled them?
Then don't buy anything from him. Monopolies are not new and in the arts, they are inherent. No one composes music like Marjan Mozetich, so listen to him or pass him up. As for Musk, you can get launch services from half a dozen other companies, but not at the price point he offers. And Verizon was under contract to the FAA to provide the desired service, but slow on delivery.
You have to get used to the free market. There is no "power and control." There are only market alternatives and freedom of choice. Looks like the Chinese may be next to offer reusable boosters. Want to purchase from them?
Inside the FREE MARKET the government is supposed to regulate against MONOPOLIES and OLIGOPOLIES!
I understand economics very well—it's one of my favorite subjects.
You're misunderstanding what it means to have a free market.
A free market simply means that the price system is managed automatically—there are no central planners controlling prices.
Since prices are determined by supply and demand, they adjust naturally without the need for micromanagement.
However, within a free market, we have something called market failures.
Monopolies and oligopolies are examples of market failures—they are not supposed to exist unchecked; they are meant to be broken up.
A free market does not mean businesses can do whatever they want.
It means that the cost of goods is regulated organically through supply and demand rather than centralized control.
In a communist economy, the price system and supply management are handled manually by central planners—often using tools like spreadsheets.
Your understanding of the free market is incorrect.
Nothing wrong with monopolies, as you would know if you really studied the free market. Oligopolies are much the same, with multiple participants under a common market policy.
A free market means that every person is free to purchase (or not) what is available at an acceptable price. Exactly, prices are determined by supply and demand.
There are no "market failures." That is what people call circumstances that they are not pleased with. Monopolies are not global. The man who invents the first automobile is still in competition with walking, horses, wind-wagons, and railroads. The competition simply moves to a higher level. That would still be true even if additional automobile manufacturers come along and join a guild of automobile vendors. (Then you get constructs like General Motors. Time drives the situation into fewer vendors. Happened in automobiles. Happened in airliners.)
Intervening in the market to destroy monopolies or oligopolies because they are offensive to you is "management of the market." Big time.
By the way, your idea of a free market leads necessarily to the elimination of patents and copyrights, which is abolition of one's right to intellectual property. A person obtains a patent or copyright in order to have a monopoly over the production and sale of his invention, publication, artwork, music, or motion picture. It would also disrupt the ownership of radio channels, which are monopolies granted by a kind of deed. Shall we include the Internet? I assume you have no problem with some scam artist coming out with greatawakening1.win?
Market control occurs when either the buyer or the seller possesses the power to determine the price of goods or services in a market. The power prevents the natural forces of demand and supply from setting the prices of goods in the market.
On the supply side, the sellers may control the prices of goods and services if there are only a few large sellers (oligopoly) or a single large seller (monopoly). The sellers may collude to set higher prices to maximize their returns. The sellers may also control the quantity of goods produced in the market and may collude to create scarcity and increase the prices of commodities.
On the demand side, the buyers possess the power to control the prices of goods if the market only comprises a single large buyer (monopsony) or a few large buyers (oligopsony). If there is only a single or a handful of large buyers, the buyers may exercise their dominance by colluding to set the price at which they are willing to buy the products from the producers. The practice prevents the market from equating the supply of goods and services to their demand.
Completely goofy. If I publish a book I will have production costs. Plus I want to get a certain return on investment. So I set the price (supply). It all depends on whether there is enough demand to meet my objectives. If it is wildly popular and sells out in a week, I can adjust my plans to print a larger edition at more favorable rates and sell it for a reduced price to obtain larger market share. Etc. Until everyone has a copy and the bottom falls out of the market.
The seller always (and always must) possess the power to determine the price of his goods or services. The buyer has no power at all to control prices. He always has the choice of buying at that price or not. This is true whether the seller is a monopoly (most inventions, novels, music, art, or film) or an oligopoly. Plenty of "market failures" in the form of products that did not sell well because they were of poor quality for the price asked. But that is a case where the product was a failure in the market, not a case in which the market itself was a failure.
Ridiculous to suppose that buyers would collude to not purchase. This is called a "boycott," and they are notoriously ineffectual. Unless there is no collusion and public preference does not match the market product availability (as seems to have happened with the motion picture business).
Supply and demand transcend such temporary arrangements as monopolies and oligopolies. I don't think you have been reading Friedrich Hayek or Ludwig von Mises.
Why the hell is Starlink in everything?
Is there not another patriotic vendor???
NASA is too bloated and corrupted. What better way for the WH's to track BH's than to have an asset who Controls the Satellites as opposed to who once controlled them?
I see your point. But there has to be other white hat vendors that can do this.
I don't think so...NASA would charge 20x the price and not be as effective...my hubby's a space geek..
We still need others besides Elon. I just don't want everything Elon.
It's a bad idea in my view.
I respect your perspective though.
I respect yours, too... don't put all your eggs in one basket..
Yup... I like Elon.
But I would like to see multiple companies involved in solving these problems.
There are multiple products, but not solution providers.
Ubiquiti products could easily handle it, but there isn't a single integrator that can provide a full top down custom solution like starlink can.
Why? Being unique is a property of vendors in a free market. No one else offers reusable space boosters either.
It's about power and control. I don't want one man with that much power and control.
Then don't buy anything from him. Monopolies are not new and in the arts, they are inherent. No one composes music like Marjan Mozetich, so listen to him or pass him up. As for Musk, you can get launch services from half a dozen other companies, but not at the price point he offers. And Verizon was under contract to the FAA to provide the desired service, but slow on delivery.
You have to get used to the free market. There is no "power and control." There are only market alternatives and freedom of choice. Looks like the Chinese may be next to offer reusable boosters. Want to purchase from them?
LOL!
Inside the FREE MARKET the government is supposed to regulate against MONOPOLIES and OLIGOPOLIES!
I understand economics very well—it's one of my favorite subjects.
You're misunderstanding what it means to have a free market.
A free market simply means that the price system is managed automatically—there are no central planners controlling prices.
Since prices are determined by supply and demand, they adjust naturally without the need for micromanagement.
However, within a free market, we have something called market failures.
Monopolies and oligopolies are examples of market failures—they are not supposed to exist unchecked; they are meant to be broken up.
A free market does not mean businesses can do whatever they want. It means that the cost of goods is regulated organically through supply and demand rather than centralized control.
In a communist economy, the price system and supply management are handled manually by central planners—often using tools like spreadsheets.
Your understanding of the free market is incorrect.
Nothing wrong with monopolies, as you would know if you really studied the free market. Oligopolies are much the same, with multiple participants under a common market policy.
A free market means that every person is free to purchase (or not) what is available at an acceptable price. Exactly, prices are determined by supply and demand.
There are no "market failures." That is what people call circumstances that they are not pleased with. Monopolies are not global. The man who invents the first automobile is still in competition with walking, horses, wind-wagons, and railroads. The competition simply moves to a higher level. That would still be true even if additional automobile manufacturers come along and join a guild of automobile vendors. (Then you get constructs like General Motors. Time drives the situation into fewer vendors. Happened in automobiles. Happened in airliners.)
Intervening in the market to destroy monopolies or oligopolies because they are offensive to you is "management of the market." Big time.
By the way, your idea of a free market leads necessarily to the elimination of patents and copyrights, which is abolition of one's right to intellectual property. A person obtains a patent or copyright in order to have a monopoly over the production and sale of his invention, publication, artwork, music, or motion picture. It would also disrupt the ownership of radio channels, which are monopolies granted by a kind of deed. Shall we include the Internet? I assume you have no problem with some scam artist coming out with greatawakening1.win?
TYPES OF MARKET FAILURES
SOURCE: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/market-failure/#:~:text=Market%20failure%20occurs%20when%20there,of%20goods%20or%20services%20demanded.
Market control occurs when either the buyer or the seller possesses the power to determine the price of goods or services in a market. The power prevents the natural forces of demand and supply from setting the prices of goods in the market.
On the supply side, the sellers may control the prices of goods and services if there are only a few large sellers (oligopoly) or a single large seller (monopoly). The sellers may collude to set higher prices to maximize their returns. The sellers may also control the quantity of goods produced in the market and may collude to create scarcity and increase the prices of commodities.
On the demand side, the buyers possess the power to control the prices of goods if the market only comprises a single large buyer (monopsony) or a few large buyers (oligopsony). If there is only a single or a handful of large buyers, the buyers may exercise their dominance by colluding to set the price at which they are willing to buy the products from the producers. The practice prevents the market from equating the supply of goods and services to their demand.
Completely goofy. If I publish a book I will have production costs. Plus I want to get a certain return on investment. So I set the price (supply). It all depends on whether there is enough demand to meet my objectives. If it is wildly popular and sells out in a week, I can adjust my plans to print a larger edition at more favorable rates and sell it for a reduced price to obtain larger market share. Etc. Until everyone has a copy and the bottom falls out of the market.
The seller always (and always must) possess the power to determine the price of his goods or services. The buyer has no power at all to control prices. He always has the choice of buying at that price or not. This is true whether the seller is a monopoly (most inventions, novels, music, art, or film) or an oligopoly. Plenty of "market failures" in the form of products that did not sell well because they were of poor quality for the price asked. But that is a case where the product was a failure in the market, not a case in which the market itself was a failure.
Ridiculous to suppose that buyers would collude to not purchase. This is called a "boycott," and they are notoriously ineffectual. Unless there is no collusion and public preference does not match the market product availability (as seems to have happened with the motion picture business).
Supply and demand transcend such temporary arrangements as monopolies and oligopolies. I don't think you have been reading Friedrich Hayek or Ludwig von Mises.
u/#q1033
"we can hear you breathing"
u/#q183
I think, unfortunately, that unless you have the endless drive that Elon has - it is almost impossible to create ANYTHING in America right now.
We are regulated to DEATH, and only someone who is indefatigable in the extreme can overcome those hurdles.
So any others that might have helped, were probably overcome with bureaucracy
https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1895129237478162621