Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

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.

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 .

Pump your breaks, Aestu.

Venture Capital may not be the end all be all of finding new technologies or researching new industries, but it is huge when it comes to job creation and small business ownership, which can eventually lead to large corporations employing thousands upon thousands of people.

Case and point: What happened to Facebook?

Mark Zuckerberg and his buddies started it in their dorm rooms. They had a little money to get it off the ground (Edward Saverin gave $5,000 I believe) and support their servers...but they needed more....MUCH more to get it to the next level.

When Zuckerberg moved out to California and set up Facebooks' offices there and got an ass ton of capital investment from venture capitalists, facebook was able to spread like wildfire by having the cash to support it's ever-expanding userbase. Now how many people does facebook employ? How huge will its IPO be? How much Tax Revenue is the US Government getting because of Facebooks' existence?

And how many people does Facebook employ? How much taxes does it pay?

A few hundred people...a few million dollars? Hell, I'd be amazed if Facebook even covers its associated costs of law enforcement and corporate litigation (which is hosted at taxpayer expense).

Facebook exists because of research and infrastructure that were done at taxpayer expense. Again, this is the "I Got Mine" argument.

Again: libertarianism is a philosophy of ignorance. You believe something that doesn't make sense because your entire world view is driven by reading mainstream American media. Fat cats and useful idiots unite.

There's been a market for "being in space" for the better half of a century now. 50 years ago, space colonies and such were on the table, we axed those programs in favor of lower taxes, fiat money and exploitation of existing capital. Since then of course we've still been making use of weather and telecom satelites.

The very fact that there are some turkeys like Sea Launch that can't even reliably do what the government did 50 years ago proves just how shitty venture capital is at actually getting anything done. You make it sound as if they're aspiring heroes and not just scammers who build rockets out of cardboard to impress fools like you so you'll support the government giving them Free Stuff Now.

Then you whine and bitch about "handouts", except those that are okay because of "profit".

Cars and planes were developed by loner nerds. That was practical because back in the world of 1900 (also see: Inside The Brain of Ron Paul) technology was very low capital and new technology faced no organized opposition. Designing and building the Flyer One or Model T cost as much as building the Apollo craft or a power plant, and the horse and zeppelin lobby didn't subvert early cars and planes because they weren't organized or influential.

Back to square one: Libertarianism is a philosophy of ignorance, and argued on the basis that conditions today are the same as they were in the 19th century.

Facebook exists because of research and infrastructure that were done at taxpayer expense.

Aestu, Aestu, Aestu......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook

Facebook employs over 3000 people. Of those 3000+ employees, I'm fairly positive that almost all of them pay federal income tax and might not have jobs or be paying taxes if facebook did not exist.

Their revenue is estimated at $4.27 billion dollars. Now, I don't know their expenses or profit margin since they aren't public, but they've been estimated to make as much as $1 billion in profits, which would suggest expenses of $3.27 billion. So this leaves $1 billion at a 35% corporate tax rate, so $350 million in taxes. Now I know these numbers are probably skewed due to my own internal bias, but the point is your "a few hundred people" and "a few million dollars" is absolutely absurd.

We're not even considering the sales taxes Facebook pays on the equipment they buy to run their servers, or what their owners pay in taxes, or what all their employees pay in taxes, what they pay in unemployment taxes, and so on.

Aestu, Aestu, Aestu......

As of April 2011, Facebook has over 2,000 employees, and offices in 15 countries

Now, I don't know their expenses or profit margin since they aren't public...

Most of Facebook's revenue comes from advertising...

Facebook generally has a lower clickthrough rate (CTR) for advertisements than most major Web sites.

So this leaves $1 billion at a 35% corporate tax rate, so $350 million in taxes.

Seriously, get out of here with your irrational hatred of the private sector.

Psh, what do you know about megatrolling? Nothing you've done compares to my time as Vezir.

I wasn't a finance major...but really revenue =/= cash flow? NO WAY. I HAD NO IDEA. I RUN THE BOOKS FOR A COMPANY AND DID NOT KNOW THAT. Wait wait...are you going to tell me that there's a difference between accrual basis and cash basis accounting?

So we should outlaw advertising revenue because companies don't receive the cash instantly?

Get out of here.

You have exposed yourself as a complete moron when it comes to business. I'm done with you.

Keep thinking your precious government should be able to handicap the private sector, hampering job creation and over-regulating industries to stamp out innovation.

I believe both have their place and importance. You want to go to law school, right? What are you going to do when you graduate? Open up your own private practice or try to work for a huge firm? I hope you do, maybe then you'll get a clue about how taxes work and how the private sector keeps the public sector moving.

Again, where does the tax revenue come from Aestu? Where?

And where do a majority of individuals earn their income? Who is employing/paying them?

Hint: It's those evil businesses you hate so much