Comments (11)

• Jonathan Goff

  Dick,
  While I agree that I'd rather live in a world where spaceports and spaceflight were entirely a private affair, there is some info that needs to be mentioned. New Mexico has been trying to woo all sorts of space companies (the one I work for included), not just Virgin. That still doesn't get rid of the fact that it is a subsidy, but this isn't the case of a company trying to force Uncle Sugar to do something it hasn't already convinced itself that it wanted to do. The problem right now is with the regulatory environment the way it is, starting a purely private spaceport isn't likely to happen. Most investors are still semi-unconvinced that there will be adequate demand, and are waiting for a succesful spaceflight company to prove them wrong. Problem is that you can't have a spaceflight company without a spaceport.

  So we're kind of stuck in a situation where due to the legal system, a subsidized state-run spaceport is likely the only kind that's possible. Not that I think it's right, just that they've kinda stacked the deck against purely private setups.
  ~Jon

  Published: December 13, 2005 12:39 PM

• Yancey Ward

  Well, since this venture is sure to fail, that is $235 million down the toilet.

  Published: December 13, 2005 1:21 PM

• Dennis Spain

  It may fail, it may not. You have to admit though, it's a pretty gutsy entrepeneurial endeavor, and I can salute any creative undertaking. At least it beats funding a war.

  The fact, however, that it is subsidized by the State is to be deeply regretted because it reinforces the mass hypnosis that the State giveth and the State taketh away, all hail the State!

  Published: December 13, 2005 4:18 PM

• William

  One tiny step for man and one big step for force. Now the tax payers of New Mexico will have to pay Virgin 225 mil for something that they could easy group together and fund themselves but know that the space port investment has too much risk and to little return.

  Good for Virgin they now can boldly go where subsidized businesses have proudly gone before right up to the government for their money.

  Published: December 13, 2005 5:34 PM

• Jonathan Goff

  Guys,
  Once again, this spaceport was something that NM was trying to subsidize even back when they thought that Virgin was going to be operating out of Mojave Spaceport. Virgin isn't to blame in this matter. If anyone is to blame it is the NM government.

  I personally wish that the spaceport was being privately funded, that would be very cool. I'm not a fan of taking tax-payer money and giving it to private benefactors. However, seeing as how NM was intending on spending money to draw aerospace companies into their state, I'd rather see it go to funding something that will benefit several of the commercial space companies (VG isn't the only group that will likely be flying out of the spaceport), hopefully taking away enough of the giggle factor to allow more truly private setups in the future, than to see them just give a bunch of tax breaks to huge government contractors like BLoMart or Honeywell.

  ~Jon

  Published: December 13, 2005 5:52 PM

• William

  Didn't I say that it was good for Virgin? Maybe I should of said good for Virgin, bad for New Mexico. Virgin gets what it wants, money without having to pay it all back and New Mexico gets what it wants, the ability to use force to steal money from its citizens for a project they would not otherwise undertake.

  Published: December 13, 2005 6:07 PM

• J. H. Huebert

  I agree with Mr. Goff: Virgin is not to blame here. If I had wanted to start a particular business, and I knew State A would help me with millions of dollars, while State B wouldn't, I would go to State A. Government steals lots of money from individuals and corporations, and I see nothing wrong with getting it back where you can. (As long as you keep calling for the abolition of yours and all subsidies of course, or at least don't work to support such subsidies.)
  
  Also, consider that space ventures are severely burdened by heavy government regulation, at the state and federal level (though I don't know about NM in particular). The subisidy could be viewed (morally, not legally) as compensation for these costs. That doesn't make it right to steal tax dollars for that purpose; but maybe it helps justify accepting the money.

  Published: December 13, 2005 7:32 PM

• zuzu

  two words:
  corporate welfare

  or, in rothbardian:
  government-business partnership

  or, in public choice theory lingo:
  capture

  
  tangent: as to whether this is truly good for Virgin... because a subsidy represents a wealth transfer rather than wealth creation, they are in fact receiving distorted signals from the price system and misinvesting accordingly. i doubt that's necessarily good for Virgin either.

  has this already been analyzed from the perspective of Fractional Reserve Banking and being the recipient of money expansion before the system as a whole has "caught up with the lag" that wealth has merely been transferred (the stealth tax) rather than created?

  Published: December 14, 2005 9:23 AM

• Richard Garner

  I'm not sure that this is a gusty entrepreneurial endeavour. If the effort needs to be subsidised, then it clearly is not worth doing. Therefore it is a stupid entrepreneurial endeavour.

  The only possibility that this is not the case is if the subsidies are needed in order to overcome costs that the state itself imposes. But even then, there is no means of signally that this is a worthwhile venture.

  Published: December 14, 2005 9:26 AM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

  I wouldn'nt say that it does need to be subsidized. The problem is rather that NM politicians intend to subsidize it because they want to lure Virgin and other space travel companies to NM.

  Published: December 17, 2005 1:10 PM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

  I wonder if Mr. Branson has read "The Man Who Sold The Moon" by Robert Heinlein. I would guess he has.

  Published: December 17, 2005 1:23 PM