Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

So who has the money for enterpreneurship? Going to take a guess here...



Technology is: (choose one)
A. An inelastic naturally occurring resource like coal and timber
B. Something that only the government can do
C. The product of investment

So your brother in law is full of shit. Basically he wants a handout because his corp won't do the kind of "enterpreneurialism" you talk about.



If they could make a buck, why not?



Go read about life in Nigeria



Circular argument detected

Also see: The P.H.B.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Ok. Why? And what do you think should be done?



Again, you're using the Communist argument that people will behave completely rationally and according to their own long-term self-interest.

You're also using circular reasoning in that you are arguing that because it hasn't happened, there's no reason it could or should happen. Like all fallacious circular arguments, the fallacy lies with the factors that are not considered by the circular reasoning: namely, see above.

Also see: The P.H.B.



Oligarchy And You

Also see: "Communist Arguments - Why Workers of the World Uniting Never Works Out Quite That Way"


Translation: "I Got Mine"



Except you don't because you oppose "big government".



Profit follows investment.

Your bullshit boils down to you wanting free stuff now.

Saying "apologies" doesn't make you look more civil, it makes you look like a cad for engaging in a self-serving pretense of civility while refusing to be civil by seriously engaging things outside your own skull.



Bullshit. Obviously it's profitable. Obviously whoever owns that infrastructure would become rich beyond imagining. It's not hypothetical, it's established science and economics.

People don't invest in space because those who have the means to do so - enormous personal wealth, or credibility with investors who collectively have wealth - are grounded in the status quo. Again, these people are very myopic, they are herd animals, and would rather exploit existing industries and resources rather than invest for twenty years down the line.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Who has the means to invest hundreds of millions of dollars and years of R&D into something like space travel? It wouldn't be the gigantic international corporations, would it?

I swear, you fucking people. Who do you think could possibly float the bill for this, 100 million grandmas mailing in $1 to some dude in Kansas?

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

So then, your argument is that the unpleasant realities of human nature will give way when they are compelled by government and that government will always act in a rational, enlightened and socially appropriate manner? Or at least, government is more likely to make such rational, etc decisions, and the cost of liberty and the few bad decisions are worth the good government decisions will do for the country and society as a whole?



Are you trying to say people didn't hire blacks until the government said they had to, and applying that logic, coming to the conclusion that people won't make useful things without government saying they have to (or at least, creating incentives for it)?

Or are you arguing against something I haven't actually said in this thread, and are replying to statements from other threads or replying to assumptions based on the knowledge of my being labeled a libertarian?




Does any of this make sense to anybody else? I had to do mental gymnastics and I'm still not sure I stuck the landing.

As true as this is, I don't recall Eturnal ever taking Mr. Gingrich's side on the 'government rewards for good ideas' topic.

No, you fucking people.

There are many multi-millionaires and billionaires in the world, and especially in the United States. Famous wealthy people and executives, and huge corporations aren't the only people who are throwing money around...they are just the one's that the media tends to write about more.

What's an Angel Investor?



Seriously get a clue Mayo. If the pool was 26 BILLION in 2007, I'm sure it's significantly higher today. I think that's enough potential financial resources to make a dent in space exploration, don't you?

Government is not perfect but it acts to moderate human nature. As human civilization has developed and evolved, we have developed better forms of government with more upsides and fewer downsides. The libertarian argument is an ignorant one because it refuses to understand the constructive role of government.



It's not what I'm "trying to say", it's a fact. The point is that enlightened self-interest does not always overcome petty greed and stupidity.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Aestu, do you not believe that those in government are capable of being petty, greedy, selfish, and foolish?

So what you're saying is, you're a Jesus Freak.



That arbitrary $26B figure is nothing more than what the writers of the article choose to label a disparate bunch of investments.

Are you saying that all those investors would drop all other ventures and every one of them would collectively decide to strike out into a new field? Or even most? Or even 5%? How and why would that happen?



Of course they are. That's why we have accountability via the ballot box and legal system.

Private industry should naturally be subordinate to government because it has no such mechanisms of accountability. And no, blood money is not an accountability mechanism.



He just did. He looked at this and said, "it seems like a good idea", rather than just bashing on it as he did with Obama's same proposal.

Politics is zero-sum. Also see: Negative campaign adverts.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I thought you'd say that. No, I'm not saying every angel investor would suddenly drop everything and throw all their money at this. Of course not. It probably wouldn't even be 5%. However, if the business model was solid (assuming your claims of how easily money could be generated in space exploration are true), the founder/co-founders were charismatic, intelligent, and could drum up support...certainly they could get some investors to throw money at it.

How much or how many? That's difficult to say, because I don't know how many angel investors there are, nor do I know how much money each is willing to give to any one venture. Also, since you are disregarding the $26B figure since it's inconvenient to your argument, I'll have an even tougher time convincing you.

The point I'm making is, it's very possible. Huge corporations are not the only people who could get involved in this business and are not the only people who have millions to invest.

If research gets to a point where starting a company based on space exploration and mining moon rocks or whatever the hell can be lucrative...a savvy entrepreneur would absolutely get involved, and could definitely convince some investors to fund it (at least partially). Hell the promise of a great IPO can be enough to get someone to open their checkbook. Once the first investor got a nice return, the flood gates would open for the entire industry.

Circular argument

"If it could happen it would have, but it hasn't therefore it can't".



You're also contradicting your own argument by saying that profit is a necessary motive for so-called angel investors.

What they are referring to as "angel investors" - low cap, high risk - are really just junk bond dealers. That is the literal and appropriate term for low cap, high risk investment. Junk bonds.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

When statements arise that are inconvenient to your biases....you choose to ignore them.

Please read what I've written previously, I have never said this can't happen. I've said it can't happen YET. I think in all likelihood it will happen. I disagree with you because you say it's profitable now....I say it is not profitable now. That's why it hasn't happened YET



How does this contradict my argument? My argument has not changed.

1. Space exploration is not profitable right now, there is no way to generate a ton of cash, or grow a company enough that it could get a nice IPO based on a business model of space exploration
2. If government-funded research (or research funded from individuals who just want to donate to the cause of science) uncovers a solid way to make MONEY in space exploration, the private sector will take notice
3. Businesses will then start up, and they will need capital to get going. Private investors will then have the motivation to throw money at the company and get returns on their investments.

When you say things like "yet", "proven", "not profitable", what you really mean is "I Want Free Stuff Now".

It's potentially profitable or it isn't. We've proven it's potentially profitable by looking at the underlying science. That's not in dispute.
If it's potentially profitable then it merits investment in the requisite technology and infrastructure.

The realization of potential profits follows investment. You say the investment can't happen because of "yet", "proven", "not profitable", meaning that the so-called investors don't want to put down money on "potential profits", they just want...Free Stuff Now.

Which brings us back to square one. Why invest when you can get Free Stuff Now by exploiting the status quo?
Hence why...this libertarian free market crap doesn't work...and is really just the world view of the "I Got Mine" crowd.
Hence why...the "I Got Mine" crowd believes in it because it legitimizes selfishness and ignorance.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

That's not true. Investors and venture capitalists normally play in the high-risk, high-reward field of funding start up enterprise. People have invested in all sorts of industries... "Why would I invest in a car when I have a horse!?" "Why would I invest in a plane when I have a car?" Innovation, technology and advancement aren't always created on the back of the government.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what Azelma is saying is that there isn't much of a demand for space exploration and travel because of a couple different reasons that have been lost in the shit you two are throwing at each other. Since there isn't a huge demand for this type of service or exploration then there isn't a reason for an investor to sink their money into the prospect as the investor doesn't see the chance of a good profit or return. That doesn't mean there won't be a need or demand for capital and investors further down the road.

Despite all this there is a growing market for being in space. For starters, there are companies like Sea Launch which send satellites into space... and since there is an ever-increasing need for satellites in space, the demand for this service is only going to increase over time (unless we find a way to get away from GPS and other high-speed communication links over great distances). Sea Launch had it's share of investors which helped upstart the multi-national company.

Sea Launch (and the companies like them) are given a market through companies which need satellites in space. Telecommunication, GeoInt services and we, as consumers, have a need for satellites so there is going to be an increased demand. When I went to a conference in Silicon Valley last year I had the opportunity to tour Lockheed Martin's satellite 'factory' and there were plenty in production.

Then there are companies like Virgin and SpaceX (funded largely by their CEOs), as well as others, who are working towards making government-less means to space travel (well, besides needing permits from NASA or whatever other shit the government says they need to do). Who knows where that'll take us next... maybe besides 'space tourism' we'll find an upstart use SpaceX/Virgin to transport engineers to space to repair faulty satellites. Who knows where the future is going to take us.

Interesting bit: Yesterday I was listening to some talk radio show and they were talking about Capital Gains tax, Romney's wealth and how people are mad over it all. A caller said he bought a lot of Apple shares when he first started working... and now he's able to live off the profit of that investment since he was able to take the returns and invest in other things. Maybe someone could find the article copy of when someone in the 80s said the personal computer wouldn't take off...

I don't see how it's "I want free stuff now" - is it free if you have to invest millions and wait years to get any sort of return on it? "Potentially profitable" alone isn't enough. Even if it's a proven money maker, it still takes time to generate the returns...or grow a business to the point where it's ready for an IPO.


I'll simplify it for you:

It's not "I want free stuff now" it's "I want to be fairly confident that I can get a return on this investment." It's "Yes, there is potential profit here...but right now the risks are simply too great to make it worth dumping that kind of capital into such a venture...even if I'm a huge risk taker"

"Risk" versus "Reward" is Investing 101

Yes, the profits are potentially there...we both agree on this. But at this point, with the current technology available, it's just too risky for even the riskiest investor to throw millions and millions at a project that will take an unclear amount of time and money to research and develop the technologies required to generate cash/get any sort of return.

Once technology is improved, and more viable business models are discovered, then the risk will lower (it will still always be there, obviously) to the point where investors are comfortable forking over their cash for the potential of serious returns.

EDIT:



That's pretty much what I'm saying, but it's not limited to just the existence of demand (clearly there's demand for travel and energy services). It's a function of the supply not even being able to meet demand, or only being able to do so at a cost that is simply too high . If you could generate an ASS TON of energy from space exploration, then it would be much more viable. At this point though, you could probably spend millions upon millions of dollars to explore shit looking for awesome energized space rocks and never find anything.

Or you could spend millions upon millions to send some satellites into space with idk...solar panels (ik they've done this)....but the energy received would still pale in comparison to the energy created by traditional, non-renewable and nuclear sources. Therefore you'd have to charge way more for this energy and no one would buy it.