So the answer is yes. You want the President of the United states to strong arm a business into making donations as a condition of future contracts.
Yes. It’s a common attitude on both sides of the aisle:
And now that this is stipulated and cited, l am sure we can get back on track.
One reason I think the government should stop sending said money. Let it die. The longer it lives, the better chance that a change in government can see it fully supplant any sort of “public” option for the development space (eg: NASA, in the US at least).
US officials should definitely consider national security interests when negotiating with private businesses for lucrative government contracts. Do you disagree?
No, forcing a company to give money away as a condition of business is illegal. it’s called graft.
You have never done a single bit of government contract work, have you?
I mean, if you haven’t, that’s fine, but you may wish to step out of a conversation where you have nothing but generalities to offer vs those of us with experience.
Yes, trying to restate an illegal act so it sounds patriotic doesn’t change the illegality of it.
It’s not illegal. If you think it’s illegal, please provide a cite. National security interests are very different than personal interests (the latter would be graft, and thus illegal).
“The government can’t limit your profits”
Government contract #543,343,432, Section 3, Item 5, clause 29:
“Markup is limited to 10% and must be fully documented”
I would also like to note that the difference between what is illegal and what we think is illegal is incredibly vast.
Actually, this is called “rebating” and it’s what got John Rockefeller in trouble with the Supreme Court. He literally had contracts with railroads where, if they transported a competitors oil, the railroad would charge the competitor more… and give that extra money to Standard Oil.
I don’t understand, the entire premise of the Starlink service is that, from the provider side, it’s all fixed costs, no variable costs. Cutting off starlink service to existing terminals in Ukraine saves Elon essentially no money, maybe there’s a tiny bit of cost to peerage fees from Ukraine data to elsewhere but that must be trivial. The data that Ukraine uses can’t be used by anyone else. It could be argued that Ukraine’s data usage slightly degrades the experience of adjacent cells but I imagine the bulk of the usage is at the front and the adjacent cells are Russia.
I don’t see how Elon could possibly justify that Ukraine Starlink is costing him $20M a month. Unless he’s shipping them a crazy number of terminals each month and the previous deal that the US military made with him as ended. Even then, there’s no justification there for him to cut service to existing terminals.
In short, his arguments for cutting Ukraine Starlink appear to stand up to about as much scrutiny as his arguments that he shouldn’t have to buy twitter because there’s too many bots.
If it helps you understand it better, think of SpaceX subsidies as welfare benefits, and think of Starlink as a urinalysis for drugs. Nobody’s strong-arming Musk to do anything. If he doesn’t want to dance to the government’s tune, he’s perfectly free to stop taking government handouts.
I’ve carried out contracts with the government. If you can cite you engage in political graft then by all means present your case. Politicians caught doing this go to jail.
That you are doubling down on Biden engaging in graft beyond stupid. Right now SpaceX is the best thing NASA has going for it with cost control and outright performance.
As much as I dislike Musk personally he is singularly responsible for the vision and monetary support for Space-X. A company he started in 2002 with private funds and is currently the ONLY US company sending astronauts to the space station.
It wouldn’t be graft. You’re factually incorrect. National security interests are not the same as personal interests.
From the article:
Prosecutors had accused Mr. Ryan of putting a “for sale” sign on the door to the governor’s office. They accused him of trading state contracts and political favors for cash, vacations, tickets to events and gifts to him and his family while he was secretary of state from 1991 to 1999, and governor of Illinois for four years after that.
That doesn’t sound similar to this at all.
Great! So you know that there are all sorts of stipulations in the contracts which limit things like markups, suppliers, and more, all which impact profitability and, in fact, these stipulations can place a company in a situation where they are draining cash.
So why are you arguing?
If it were illegal, Musk would have already filed suit to challenge it, instead of announcing on Twitter that he’s going to comply. (Unless you don’t think Musk has a legal team).
It’s just utterly ridiculous to suggest that attempting to influence a private company for national security interests could be graft.
Graft is graft. You keep using the word “national security” as if it grants a politician immunity to steal money. It doesn’t.
It’s not stealing. You’re just making that up.