Interesting that he mentions Elon Musk when his companies are literally kept alive by billions in government subsidies and contracts.
I don't like the binary view of "Give all power to corporations, with no government intervention" and "Let the state control all means of research and access"
The ideal is clearly in between, where the state should break up monopolies and punish companies that have detrimental externalities to their functioning(like polluting the environment).
That's not to dismiss government funded research either. We have Computers and The Internet in large part due to US Government research. Once an idea becomes marketable and profitable, private companies can swoop in, like Microsoft or Apple with Computers.
But decades of unprofitable research is not feasible in a corporation. You would need the government to fund that.
"Interesting that he mentions Elon Musk when his companies are literally kept alive by billions in government subsidies and contracts."
Your point would be stronger without this falsehood. Both SpaceX and Tesla could do business without subsidies and government contracts. There were times during the worst parts of the Great Recession when this WAS true (and both businesses benefited from the technology and general environment enabled by government investment), but it's not "literally" true any longer that they're "kept alive" by government subsidies or contracts. Most of SpaceX's are non-US-govt satellites now, and SpaceX doesn't receive launch support subsidies like ULA. Tesla would still sell a lot of cars without the EV tax credit (which goes to the consumer, not Tesla, by the way... and is a bigger proportion of their competitors' car value than their own). Both companies would need to pull back growth without govt contracts and incentives, but to say they are today literally kept alive is blatantly false.
And your false claim undermines your central point, actually. If innovative corporations need government subsidies indefinitely to literally stay alive, then government-funded innovation isn't competitive and all government is doing is propping up industries instead of making R&D investments that pay off in long-term growth.
Without the NASA contract in 08, SpaceX would have gone down, according to Musk himself. It's true that they are increasingly less dependant on the government, and they hopefully reach a point soon where they are completely independent. But in the early stages when they weren't making profits, government contracts were crucial in keeping SpaceX alive and is the reason they exist today.
>If innovative corporations need government subsidies indefinitely to literally stay alive
I didn't say they need subsidies indefinitely. It's clear that once they start making large profits, it's not a necessity- but they take it anyway. I think SpaceX and Tesla are good examples of companies that governments should subsidise, because they are focussed on innovation in fields which are important for long term sustainability. I don't think they should subsidise Exxon or oil companies, for instance.
My point was you can't dismiss government subsidies as irrelevant when in comes to innovation. It is necessary to support companies that carry out important research, but aren't able to make profits yet.
"Without the NASA contract in 08, SpaceX would have gone down, according to Musk himself."
Yeah, that's what I said in my above post. In the depths of the Great Recession, both were on the razor's edge, and the government helped a lot for both (particularly SpaceX). But this situation was temporary, not current.
I get what you're saying. It's a common view that balances the two ends of the spectrum, as you point out.
There was an article just a few days ago by Farhad Manjoo entitled Google, Not the Government, Is Building the Future (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/technology/personaltech/g...) that I think captures your viewpoint well. I'd like to spend some time digesting it, after which I'll likely write some thoughts.
Pure socialism doesn't work. As most people are selfish and only give a shit about themselves or their families.
And pure capitalism doesn't work because humans have a short life span so are mostly thinking about 5-10 years from now not 50 to 60 years in the future. So goverment intervention is needed to plan far into the future.
I don't like the binary view of "Give all power to corporations, with no government intervention" and "Let the state control all means of research and access"
The ideal is clearly in between, where the state should break up monopolies and punish companies that have detrimental externalities to their functioning(like polluting the environment).
That's not to dismiss government funded research either. We have Computers and The Internet in large part due to US Government research. Once an idea becomes marketable and profitable, private companies can swoop in, like Microsoft or Apple with Computers.
But decades of unprofitable research is not feasible in a corporation. You would need the government to fund that.