There are many, MANY problems with the US government sloshing trillions of dollars per annum throughout the economy.
Ironically, trillions of those dollars over the decades have been sloshed around in the name of “sustainability.” Except one thing that is absolutely un-sustainable? The massive debt DC has accrued sloshing around those tens of trillions of dollars.
Perhaps the worst part of blindly shotgunning money into the Body Americana? It props up a lot of really terrible ideas. And makes a lot of other ideas look a whole lot better than they actually are. And that fake “success” - means they keep getting government money. Year after wasted year.
No one does fake “success” like DC. To wit: Social Security and Medicare are heralded nigh everywhere as “successes.” Yet the two programs are $175+ trillion short over the next thirty years. I’m no accountant, but….
If something is a good idea - no government money is necessary. Because there will be plenty of private money champing at the bit to invest. No one needs to subsidize ice cream.
And as Artificial Intelligence (AI)’s about-to-burst, multi-trillion-dollar bubble demonstrates? The private sector swings and misses a whole lot.
So if your idea is so bad it only attracts government money? It is a REALLY bad idea.
Which brings us to Elon Musk. One of America’s all-time great gobblers of government money. Behold the Government-Preneur.
Exactly a decade ago - October 26, 2016 - I for the first time in writing pointed out that nigh the entirety of Musk’s business endeavors require massive infusions of government money.
Musk’s electric cars and solar panels (Tesla) only ever existed because of massive government handouts.
And then there is SpaceX. Which to be fair gets government contracts rather than handouts.
But as we know, government is just as incompetent and/or corrupt with contract money as they are with handout money.
To wit: 14 of the 27 corporate “donors” to President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom? Have subsequently received new or increased government contracts.
Musk the Government-Preneur is a master at setting dazzling deadlines - and then never, ever meeting them. From which he distracts the masses - by announcing an ongoing, rolling set of dazzling deadlines. None of which he ever meets. From which he distracts the masses….
Cashing LOTS of government checks all along the way, of course.
Musk the Government-Preneur is a master at accomplishing things that really aren’t accomplishments. They dazzle the masses - but don’t represent progress of any real sort.
Tesla just made a car hop in the air. For five seconds. After which its air thrusters had to charge for 2-6 hours. What progress does this actually represent? None - is the answer. But the masses were indeed dazzled.
The Tesla hop is very reminiscent of the Tesla driving experience. Very short bursts of activity - followed by many hours of refill downtime.
All the while, Musk is cashing LOTS of government checks. Because of course.
I will admit SpaceX has had at least one real accomplishment. If we can reliably reuse spacecraft - as SpaceX seems to be able to do? That is progress actually achieved.
“But what of Starlink?” you ask. Starlink exists within SpaceX, and is Musk’s global satellite Internet provider.
Starlink has looked like a long-term, viable success. But is it really? Or is it yet another not-so-great idea - propped up and papered over with even more government money?
Let’s try to answer this question - without getting too bogged down in TechSpeak.
Starlink currently relies on ~11,000 Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites. To be an Internet provider here on Earth, a satellite Internet company must use LEO satellites. Higher Earth orbit satellites can’t deliver the goods.
The problem is: LEO satellites have a distinctly shorter operational life. The closer to Earth satellites travel - the more drag the increased atmosphere imposes. More drag = shorter shelf life.
LEO satellites only last about five years. (Versus 15-20+ years for higher Earth orbit satellites.) Five short years - creates some serious replacement problems.
It means more satellites-more launches-more often. And that means lots more money.
And Starlink only currently serves 13.6 million customers globally - 2.7 million in the US.
By way of comparison? Terrestrial wireless Internet providers are doing just a little bit better:
Verizon: 147.0 million US customers
T-Mobile: 143.3 million US customers
AT&T: 121.4 million US customers
Were Starlink to start increasing its customer numbers? It would, of course, mean more satellites-more launches-more often. Which means more money.
These are expenses terrestrial providers do not face.
Then there’s the wireless spectrum problem. Spectrum is the finite resource that delivers the wireless Internet goods down here on Earth.
Starlink - like the terrestrial providers - can’t deliver without it. Only unlike the terrestrial providers - Starlink currently has almost no spectrum with which to work.
That is another major expense - but at least one Starlink shares with their terrestrial competitors. But Starlink is coming from WAY behind on that front. Which means even more money.
Does all of this multi-directional money spending make business sense for Starlink? In other words: Does Starlink competing with terrestrial providers make business sense?
It is really difficult to tell. Because our view of Starlink is obfuscated.
As it sits inside the vortex of government money subsuming all parts of the Musk Government-Preneur Empire.