Why Private Investment Works & Govt. Investment Doesn't | 5 Minute Video
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 апр 2016
- From transportation to energy, and everything in between, should the government invest money in as many promising projects as possible? Or would that actually doom many of those ventures to failure? Burt Folsom, historian and professor at Hillsdale College, answers those questions by drawing on the fascinating history of the race to build America's railroads and airplanes.
Donate today to PragerU! l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. prageru.com/signup
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
iPhone: l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG
Android: l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! www.prageru.com
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: / prageru
Twitter: / prageru
Instagram: / prageru
PragerU is on Snapchat!
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: l.prageru.com/29SgPaX
JOIN our Educators Network! l.prageru.com/2c8vsff
Script:
In 2011, a solar power company called Solyndra declared bankruptcy. A company going bankrupt is not news. But Solyndra was not just any company. Its biggest “investor” was the federal government which had given it $500 million dollars. That was news.
But, really, it shouldn’t have been. If history is any guide, it was quite predictable. The government is a very poor investor. And always has been. There are countless examples, but two should serve our purpose here.
After the Civil War, American leaders were anxious to bind the country’s North, South, East, and West regions together with transcontinental railroads. Congress therefore gave massive federal aid to build the Union Pacific, the Central Pacific, and later the Northern Pacific Railroads. But all three of these roads had huge financial problems. The Union Pacific, for example, was mired in financial scandal from its inception, went bankrupt several times, and had to rebuild large sections of track thanks to shoddy construction practices.
At that same time, James J. Hill, with no federal aid whatsoever, built a railroad from St. Paul to Seattle -- the Great Northern. How was Hill able to do with private funds what the Union Pacific failed to do with a gift of tens of millions of federal dollars?
The starting point is incentives. The Union Pacific was paid by the government for each mile of road it built. It was in the railroad’s interest not to build the road straight. The more miles it took the UP to cross Nebraska, for example, the more money it made.
Hill, by contrast, used his own capital. To make a profit, he had to build his Great Northern Railroad sturdy and straight. Hill’s company remained in business for almost a hundred years until 1970 when it merged with other railroads. The original Union Pacific, riddled with corruption and numerous other financial misdeeds, including the wholesale bribery of public officials, went broke within ten years.
The story of the airplane is even more stark. By the opening of the twentieth century, the major nations of Europe and America were frantically at work trying to invent a flying machine. The first nation to do so would have a huge military and commercial advantage.
In fact, leading American politicians of the day, such as Teddy Roosevelt, President William McKinley, and others argued that building an airplane was a national emergency. There was no time, they argued, to wait for private industry to get the job done. The government needed to pick the best aeronautics expert and give him the money he needed.
That expert was Samuel Langley, the president of the prestigious Smithsonian Institution and holder of honorary degrees from Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Cambridge. Langley was already an accomplished inventor and he had written a highly praised book Experiments in Aerodynamics. Federal officials gave Langley funds for two trial flights. He immediately set to work. His theory was that his plane needed to be thrust into the air from a houseboat on the Potomac River. The big engine on the plane would then propel it through air for several minutes.
For the complete script, visit www.prageru.com/videos/why-pr...
Langley: "It's impossible!"
The Wright Brothers: "I'm about to end this man's whole career."
Langley himself ended his career
Jesus, this "about to end this man's whole career" is one of the most overrused & overrated comment in RUclips
Langley has the government behind him even after his failures and tried to steal the Wright brothers patents. After his death Glenn Curtiss continued that effort until the Wrights’ patents were eventually held up in court. Later the Smithsonian put an aircraft of Langley’s design on display, falsely claiming it was the first to accomplish sustained flight (an accomplishment actually accomplished by the Wrights). Even after all the fraud and a number of other scandals associated with Langley he still had the first US Aircraft Carrier, military bases, and other government facilities named for him.
@@CharmsDad yeah USS Langley converted from a Collier she was so ugly oof
“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.”
Milton Friedman
Really hate how RUclips cuts off the bottom of some comments so I can't read the whole thing. Grr.
+Kilyle “There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.”
Milton Friedman. ENJOY
+Kilyle just click on the blue "show more" link at the bottom of the comment ;-)
It doesn't show up for a lot of comments -- including yours! Some comments it's there. Others it's not. I think it's something to do with Google Plus but I'm not sure, and it's irritating.
I can read the rest of the comment here on the notifications, but was not able to read it on RUclips's comments section.
Aktien mit Kopf a
"Economic growth comes from Entrepreneurs risking their own money, not from govt politicians risking your money. "
Can't be more true.
I have to ask you are you Assamese. Cuz I am too. And it wil be great to meet another Assamese who likes capitalism and prageru
@@chadcj2077 I like Capitalism and PragerU, no matter how many comments sections I look into. They can be toxic.
@Futures solution? Don't give government power to do that.
Thats not true
@@williamjewell6247 The government could be more capable than privatised businesses in R&D and infrastructure. It depends on the context. This video is highly biased, there are advantages and disadvantages in both government-led and private-led, but generally, government-led is more efficient because private industries could be easily subsidised indirectly. I strongly recommend you to read upon economic theory from both the left and the right and not tilt in any of the direction.
Easy enough:
private investment fails = learn from our mistakes and move on
government investment fails = we didn't spend enough money so let's try the same thing again with a bigger budget.
Government iInvestment is the very definition of insanity (repeatedly do the same thing and expect that it will end differently)
You just explained the private and public school systems 👏👏
Well in the Philippines it's a partnership between gov't and the private sector.
Good job New York Times. You nailed it as usual. I'm still waiting for that first powered human flight... another millions years im sure
They've been consistent for decades
I got laughed at when I started trading. I was burnt out, needed a change, also wasn't expecting to be laughed out of the office when I mentioned my interest in investing in the stock market. Well, a few years later and $5.3 million in savings, I'm the one laughing now. Friends now want to know exactly what my i do to earn well I advise everyone to start trading in the stock market today for a better tomorrow that’s all I can say,thanks to Mr carlos @carlos_1uptrades on instagram. I’m making a living trading forex
They also released an ad on TV a few years ago saying truth is hard and truth is relative basically. Truth is they have given me many reason to not trust them and not sure why people still let them brain wash them. They need to do some serious changes or shut down. People need to be wiser how poor the leadership is at the NY times news. Propaganda and agenda driven more than news. So awful.
@@MrCalexv12 consistently poor and misguiding yes I agree
Thought the same thing! Why are they ALWAYS wrong? At least they’re consistent 🤣
How about no company or industry gets a single penny from tax payers?
Yasssssss
+TickedOff Priest Agreed, vote Cruz for that to happen. He wants no subsidies to ANY company.
+Josh Singleton already did.
+TickedOff Priest Holy Shit, Why didn't they think of that? Surely a government just loves giving away money. Come on mate, I'd rather you learn something, do some research and tell me why that's a pretty silly question.
*****
They are bribed by companies these days.
Who has the deepest pockets? That is the question.
Entrepeneur who's funded by the government: "Who cares if our plan fails or we need to fix our mistakes, the government will bail us out"
Entrepeneur who's funded by it's own money: "We've got one chance at this, make it the best we can do"
yeah i get one chance so i gots to make as much as i can on this cut corners go cheap
@@AgeofCraccadilliaassent cheap doesn't automatically equal bad.
Especially government grants. No risk of fail
@12BJJohnson You get what you pay for usually
@12BJJohnson okay
"Things in our country work in spite of the government, not by aid of it." - Will Rogers.
This could not be more true.
The Internet you sent this over was a government project, as was the GPS and all satellite communication.
They did it wrong. They should've said "Whoever gives us the flying machine will get the prize money."
+integ3r No.
Why?
Philippe Dionne-Gosselin Are you talking to the original commentator, or me?
Rio Grande Woups, thought I included your name. Yeah I was asking you.
Philippe Dionne-Gosselin Well, in that case, the reason they shouldn't have done that is because it is always better when the market creates things on its own. When you get people trying to win prize money from the government, you're not always going to get what you should with normal market forces.
Now, if another country had an airplane, and it was of immediate national security to make one, well, you might have to. Otherwise, leave it to the free market.
The $2,000 the Wright Brothers spent is about $50k today. Not bad for a world-changing technology!
This could be why spacex accomplish what some people called "impossible" and Nasa gave up on.
spacex receives government funding.
Alethean but they started out private until they accomplished the vertical landing
they also don't need it. they have received several billion from google and many other large corporations, not to mention how much Elon Musk has to spend.
+jeremy rocker ee f
after Apollo program NASA has a very modest funding
(to develop game-changing disruptive technologies)
and it is continuously in decline.
thats why capitalism is the best
This video is so stupid. You should not listen to it. They forgot that government investment led to the creation of the internet, put a man on the moon and that most modern innovation comes form a combination of private and government investment. They also seem to think that where you get your money affects the quality of the thing you spend it on. Which is completely untrue. If I buy a piece of gum with a dollar I found on the ground the gum won't taste differently or have different qualities then a piece of gum I bought with a dollar I got as part of my salary. Even children understand this concept.
Edit: I just fixed some spelling mistakes and changed one word that I thought wasn't the best word choice for expressing my thoughts.
@@kaic1649 first of all, why would you buy something that you found on the ground? Also if you found something on the ground you wouldn't value it as much as something you bought with your own money.
Kai C he never said spending your own money makes what your buying better neither did he say government investment never works he simply pointed out how when someone uses their own money they’re more careful but when they’re using other peoples money they’re probably gonna try to pocket as much if it as possible
@@kaic1649 Watch more PragerU, you are a socialist/fascist.
@@turborooster8548 Exactly. An earned dollar for a start has twice the value to you because you paid tax just to have it.
This is offensives, I identify as a trans-continental railroad.
You win the Internet
I identify as a steam locomotive, may I have consent to drive on your tracks
TIM MCAULIFFE If not it's rape.
+TIM MCAULIFFE then go back to college where you'll be pampered.
Is that sexual harassment?
America needs to return to capitalism.
Are you joking? We already are lol what other nation in Central Europe makes their Citizens pay for their healthcare by themselves and also for their College education lol
+Batmangutten There isn't an issue with that my Dad is now a CPA Accountant and when he was in College he paid his College by working as a waiter three times a week and I'll do same to make it in this Capitalist Economy lol
+Harry Christofi Mangina libtard
+Batmangutten no, there are plenty people moving to the USA, but also the other way around.
+Harry Christofi We pay for our healthcare and education. In taxes. So we pay more.
When I was in the Navy, I got laughed out of the wardroom for suggesting that captains be rewarded for operating their ships efficiently. The others thought our job was to show the flag, and cost was not a factor whatsoever.
they were right. The idea is to increase military budgets every year so defense contractors can get rich. if you start saving money you ruin the whole purpose. You werent expecting a peace dividend were you?
@@jlrinc1420 No, it’s just idiots being slow.
I’m so sorry, but you should have expected that... the military is mostly meatheads, especially these days. Not an insult, I appreciate your service, but not a whole lot are educated on economics and show it. Probably cause a plurality of them chose the army as a last option.
You mean pay them bonus's for doing their jobs? how would efficiency be measured? what would this look like? not ordering ammunition, not having enough staff /parts to cover for losses in a combat, fiddling books and records, not feeding crews properly, buying cheap components and fuel that would age the ship, bullying and driving men to a state of unhappiness and denying leave, causing high turnover of men and losses from the service. Nothing good comes of it.Short term gain for long term loss.
4:21 Wow, NYT was FakeNews even back then 😂😂😂
Yeah even the DailyMail (always been leftist) praised hitler and nazism
@@user-vv1do1wg1j So they were on the right, not on the left
@@caiotizio145 nazism is a leftist ideology kid.
@@S3Mi87 in which ways are they a left wing ideology if rejection of the values of the enlightment, privatization, capitalism, nationalism and traditionalism are fondaments of their ideology? are republicans left wing too then?
The only capitalists who were killed were either jews or enemies of the regime, while the others (especially the military industry) received the only limitation of collaborating with the regime and a lot of them received places in the government.
The political enemies they killed were socialists and communists and they also purged "the left wing of the Nazi party".
The socialist in the parties name is also different from Marx's (and of everyone else) use of the term and Hitler proclaimed that Marx stole the term socialist from an ancient German society. The Syndacats were created by the regime and exloited as puppets in the hands of the Party that used them to communicate with industrials.
Hitler also declared that charities and welfare were bad and that the weak should soccumb.
So, in which ways was he a leftist, kid?
@@caiotizio145 Your first sentence debunks yourself... those are left wing ideologies. Rejection of enlightenment principles such as privatization and capitalism are in fact left wing views.
I normally don't agree with any PragerU's videos, but I'm onboard with this one. I work for a private contractor that hold contracts with the federal government. You should see how they piss away your tax money everyday.
+Andrew Cascio No, the private company I work for wastes the money. Last year the government gave them $1.5 million to renovate a building. Long story short, they did about $50,000 in work and pocketed the rest as profit.
Why don't you agree with most of PragerU? They say very truthful statements.
My mom works for a public hospital and it's a bloated mess. When I volunteered in the social work department the supervisor said that HR didn't update their job list, so they had jobs with applications not being interviewed and applications not being processed. The supervisor who's familar with the state government said it's a bloated system.
All Government is inefficient. Civil service was actually conceived that way in Britain. A way to provide jobs for people. You have to employ them to do something, so there's a lot of wasted time and resources.
Actually, there's an element of communism in civil service.
When you're running a department to a budget, instead of to a profit, then the financial incentive for efficiency is not there.
Private companies working to contracts still have a financial incentive for efficiency. Do the work for the cheapest cost and extract the highest profit. They're not pissing the money away at all. They're being stingy with it. You end up with the least the company thinks it can get away with doing whilst maintaining its reputation.
Andrew Cascio your right, I think your on to something we could hire people, like the ones that work at the DMV.
Thanks. I find it almost stupid that people in 2016 still believe Government can fix the energy issue.
+AzureSymbiote The government could... It just doesn't.
+AzureSymbiote Scratch the word "almost" and insert "incredibly" from your comment and you've got it right.
+Elliott Deevy Or shouldn't period. As the video points out, if new and wonderful technologies that would help progress immensely can't be solved or advanced by government backing, nothing today should either. Solyndra proved that, and over a hundred years ago, it was proved then too.
+AzureSymbiote There really isn't a energy issue, we have enough fossil fuels to last the next hundred years. In the meantime we can work on alternative energy sources.
Josh Singleton Can't believe Obama keeps giving them money.
You’ll always appreciate it more when it’s your own money.
The New York times; Wrong for more than a century!
Wonderful video.
Mike Maloney!!!!!😍😍😍😍😱😱😱😱😱
Langley: "It's impossible"
Wright Brothers: "You can't spell impossible without possible"
Some of you guys need to realize that this is mostly to do with new technologies. Only NASA really made a difference but that was when it was being pressured heavily by the government and society to produce results, often with drastic consequences. Nowadays NASA does the safe thing and operates more like the military in how it produces new technology. Government still needs to fund basic amenities like road infrastructure. If anything the government needs to be more strict with its money and require stronger contracts to avoid another UPR situation.
Meh, the interstate highway system is publicly funded. Satellite technology required initial government investment. Even the Wright brothers example had only two possible motivators personal interest in a novelty, and a government payout for success. The fact is that it is _still_ a government investment.
The answer to the implied question of why people don't learn that "government investments" are doomed is that the people making the declaration wait until the success or failure result before they decide whether something counts as a "government investment."
Thank you for pointing this out. It would also be quite interesting to see how often private investments fail (opossed to tax payers money, naturally nobody has an interest in publishing this, though). One could follow up on 'shark tank' though and see how sucessful private investment really is.
You mean areas that are either government monopolized or heavily government regulated. Some areas are not exactly a fair fight to see who does it better. Today, the potential for private investment and crowd investment could blow the government out of the water, if their dominated areas weren't so entrenched. All they have to do is get out of the way.
Finally someone smart.
Dan Pro
But it wasn't even a question of "who does it better?" It was basically a claim that everything the government touches turns to dust. And that is simply not the case.
There are certain things that I don't want to be the domain of private businesses. If the city streets were privately run, there might be a $1000 toll to access the road immediately outside your house. And there is no way to have competition to do anything about that.
Private funding is not some magical panacea. And there are some things that would be disastrous to the general public were they run based on a profit motive.
John Undefined
I never said private funding is "magical" or even that everything the government touches turns to dust (although, it's much more likely to). Clearly, different governments are better than others and right now we are at a pretty high point. But all governments are ultimately unsustainable and out of "our" control (debt, inflation, corruption, overgrowth, cultural destabilization, etc). We're on the downward slope now and a lot of it has to do with putting trust in government.
As for your private road example, I think that is highly implausible in a free market situation. Businesses aren't like the government and people can actually leave. Also, who would buy the roads? It's most likely developers and real estate investors would. They WANT people to come and stay, and would try to make the roads affordable. Also, I wouldn't discount competition. Alternate routes, various transportation methods, etc. Furthermore, you just assume all business owners are assholes. Yes, the want to turn a profit, but that doesn't mean they want to rip everyone off. And if they try, the have a much greater chance of feeling consequences than the government because they are subject to customer/client losses. If their losses are too great, they can't just print money or go into infinite debt like the government does. They will FAIL.
That brief explanation is incomplete and there are likely many more ways to solve the issues privately. I think there's a faulty assumption you're making by demonizing profit. The profit motive is not good in some areas and not others. EVERYONE, even those in the state are interested in profit. You really expect anyone to do work to make something better and not gain? Profit is simply the reward for bringing something to the consumer they are willing to pay for rather than somehow make/do it themselves. Competition, choice and market accountability (nobody works in a vacuum) are what keeps profit margins reasonable in a free market. Governments are the only one's who can destroy competition and often do.
The common thread isn't about investing at all....it was more about forcing the situation. In all instances where the government "invests" in an idea, they are forcing people to come up with the task itself (like research and development). Where private "investment" occurs, it's more of the fact of people trying new things with what they have available and being rewarded at the END of their accomplishment. The government can properly incentivize by simply giving a task and stating the reward of completing the task....rather than give the money in the beginning. Subsidizing (or simply giving money before effort) only leads to failure by laziness, it's not like the government will put them in jail if they don't comply, so there's no incentive for them to even try hard at all.
+Robert Caldwell (sabriath) Now that's a good idea.
Not sure if that's not gonna go south or it is already in the south.
That's actually a good idea. Put up a bounty for whoever can come up with the invention you want, and once they've proven that their invention works, then they get paid the money and get hired.
I'm a progressive, and i can compromise with the conservatives on this.
i said progressive, not democrat
+Bill Nye Neither conservatives or progressives likes to see tax payers money being wasted on unpromising investments or being used to bail out failed companies.
Yeah, some things are better paid for by the government, others are better private. This whole black-and-white "market is always best" philosophy is absurd. No I don't want to have to pay to drive on roads or have health insurance. Yes I want doctors to remain private along with car manufacturers. Capitalism = high quality goods at the expense of living conditions for the masses. Socialism = low quality goods with better living conditions.
We should combine the two like the most modern countries already have.
Bill Nye this is not about conservatism. It is about capitalism.
Bill Nye is a fool. Progressivism is leftist communist doctrine. To call yourself a progressive is to call yourself a communist asshole.
You guys are amazing. Keep up the great work.
This was very informative. Thank you
Another example for the video: UPS vs USPS.
+elpidiovaldez4ever USPS is operationally profitable.
USPS is forced, by the government, to back pay for 5.5 billion USD in health benefits every year for its future retirees... forcing it into an overall loss. This obligation is not imposed on UPS.
And USPS is not funded by the government in any way. It's an independent federal agency that raises its own revenue, just like UPS... but unlike UPS it has a federally imposed burden of 5.5 billion USD every year.
USPS loses money because of the government, but for different reasons. It is a competently managed federal agency. If UPS had the same burden as USPS, it would be losing about the same amount of money like USPS.
+Theg USPS was forced to up their game when competition came into play. Cost, reliability and expidited shipping were all vastly improved as a result. And employee compensation (including pensions) are part of any business' operational cost, so the claim that they are profitable is dishonest imo.
dan mahoney
UPS and Fed Ex don't back pay 5.5 billion in retirements each year.
They have a pay as you go system.
Yep, they both have a pension plan and you don't consider the USPS system as an operational cost. I fail to see your logic.
+dan mahoney What are you not understanding, USPS essentially has to pay half of the pension for an employee right when they are hired. UPS does not have to do this they can fund it year by year as the employee stays with company.
It's ironic that this video was posted literally the week after First Solar announced that thanks to the billions the US invested in loan guarantees, they are making solar panels at a lower cost than China.
The great thing about the example of First Solar is that it shows how we actually can bring back manufacturing jobs and create more engineering jobs in the United States right this very second if the government invests in the right technologies.
Taking a look at a few examples of when government investment didn't work is not a fair barometer for judging whether or not we should always reject such practices. In many other cases, it has been an incredibly wise and important investment.
Imagine if your taxes didn't go toward keeping roads or sidewalks safe to travel on. Would you want to pay a toll for every road you drove on, or every sidewalk you walked on? Imagine a toll booth at the beginning and end of every sidewalk. How ridiculous is that?
Government investment works sometimes because it is in the best interest of the people to invest in certain projects that will benefit everyone. The trick is figuring out which things we should be investing in and finding the right way to invest in them. When it's your tax dollars going toward paying for something that is essentially intended to be a public service, you typically end up spending less to get that service through tax dollars paid than you would if it were a private investor offering the same service.
Let's not pretend that private investment is always good and government investment is always bad. Clearly that is not the case, and when government investment does work out, it's usually an enormous boon to our society as a whole. The space race, the internet, and now even solar panels being developed at a cheaper price than competitors overseas? Yeah, I'd say that there are plenty of excellent and awesome examples of what good can come of government investment.
+Stoudman The question isn't whether or not the government can make investments that actually pan out. The question is whether the money would have done more good in other hands.
You say that we're making solar panels at a lower cost than China, but have you factored in the amount of money that we've spent getting those cheap solar panels? What if private investors used that money to make cleaner coal or nuclear power; would we have been better off?
People tend to ignore that throwing good money after bad money- though it might result in an accept product- doesn't necessarily mean that the benefits outweighed the costs.
+Stoudman He talk about government investment in research and creating new technologies. Government investment fail, because the scientist use the money as pork barrel spending
Doesn't matter how cheaply they are made, it's still the least efficient energy source. Nobody would buy them if the government weren't involved. Another example of government pissing away money like the ethanol subsidies.
He didn't say it never works. He was pointing out the fact that, historically speaking, the government has a poor record of investing. I would like to see a counter point too, but I think the argument was sound.
+Stoudman What makes you think that you make them with lower cost than china if china manufacture those solar panels?
"Taking a look at a few examples of when government investment didn't work is not a fair barometer for judging whether or not we should always reject such practices. In many other cases, it has been an incredibly wise and important investment."
And you think that politician should make decision how to use your money?
You're willingly ignoring how most political investments have screwed up. Soviet russia and mao's china is great example what will always end up happening when government does investments.
You're like gambling addict who thinks that winning every now and then somehow pays back all the money and lives you have lost.
"Imagine if your taxes didn't go toward keeping roads or sidewalks safe to travel on."
No one is arguing against taxes going for roads.
"The trick is figuring out which things we should be investing in and finding the right way to invest in them. "
And it always in fields of politics goes into corruption. Like hey let's invest to this company that my friend just made!
🙄 Very true conclusion.
Nigeria's 🇳🇬 state telecom company spent more than 40 decades but only managed to get 2% of National telephone coverage.
In 2001 private firms were given licences to operate, and 3 private telecom lines (including 1 local based ) were each able to connect 70% of the nation in a space of 3 years!
Now *that* is commendable.
I'm happy to see you guys are still up
I feel for this guy and all the other small business owners. It's disgusting. We must speak out. Thank you Prager University.
I can't believe Union Pacific lasted as long as 10 years!
An incredible video and a profound insight!
Wonderful and informative thank you.
NASA did pretty good in the 60's though. Only now the private sector can manage to accomplish wonders (SpaceX rocket landing being the only one so far).
But it took more than 50 years to make the plane a current thing to see. I suppose private space exploration will become mainstream in 2060...
Born too soon.
+TheMetroidPrime SpaceX will be one of the next examples of private enterprise success. As soon as someone makes space profitable, we will be a multi-planet species. Until then, the government will do "great wonders" by only sending a telescope into orbit or a rover to Mars every 5 years or so.
see nasa did good, but private companies contracted with them and built the various bits of hardware. nasa was really more of a coordinator
And a funder
The space race in the sixties was a war of economic attrition and the weapon of choice was government funded research. Government research programs are very good at making companies and nations go bankrupt. This is exactly what the space race was designed to do. Unlike railroads and airplanes putting a man on the moon had almost no private incentive.The nation was the only intrested party, the incentive was entirely public. As such, we never saw how well the private sector could have done, but we did see how effective the space race was at bankrupting the Soviet Union, at great economic cost to the United States of America. Only now that there is renewed interest in returning to space with the absence of government intervention are we beginning to see what private industry is capable of in this sector, and it looks very promising so far.
Meteor Prime of course,when it comes to things made for the people,it's better done BY the people,these other ones were made for research purposes in the hope that people later would be possible to explore this as also.
Santos Dumont Invented the Airplane, not the Wrong Brothers.
Thank you professor. Well said.
Beautiful! - Great video.
Only halfway agree. Contrary to the video, there are cases in which government investment did work. Like during the era of heavy space exploration and during the second world war, there was a boom in advancement of technology especially with rockets and airplanes and satellites. Of course, it had to do with incentives again since they needed the best things possible to win an important war and there was heavy pressure and competition from the USSR to drive that push.
Yeah, so I"m wondering what the difference was between the space race and the... air race. They seem like comparable goals, with the difference just being a matter altitude.
yes, the video title and focus shoulda been showing balanced points of both, saying gvt investment dont work it is a half lie, i got many points there. but eome got way over my head for "is he serious bout dis shit?"
last I looked, NASA has already sent men to the moon and probes to many of the planets and deep space. I figure that's one point for NASA. Space X is "cheap" now but wait until they're the only game in town. Once a company gets its foot in the door the price goes up.
MaestroAlvis with the air race they gave up after the second try lol.
I can just hear folks bring up how the internet was created by Government.
Birth of the internet- "We need a secure communication net work so we can launch our nukes against our enemies!". Enemies are still competitors, and competition is a capitalist doctrine. So even if folks do say that they are confirming capitalism works.
Many, many thanks for sharing this !
Love theses videos. Thank you.
this video solved half the mystery of my future. Thank you so much Sir for this video, I really appreciate.
jet fuel cant melt steel peams
👍😁👏
+Ben Collier jet fuel can't melt dank memes.
+Ben Collier
Mr. Collier
Jet fuel burns at 1500 degrees F. Steel softens and becomes weak at 1000 degrees F. With some simple research you could've found this out for yourself.
Kennedy was killed by the skipper from Gilligan's Island.
7/11 was a part-time job
This was a good and clear video from Prager. One of the better ones for sure.
I love these videos! I wish they had another segment when they would go more in depth and videos don’t go above 20 minutes.
Very grateful for prageru
One of the best Prager University's videos, simply because it is so true.
you make some good points here prager
Cherry picked points.
Explain, what other examples of government investments have worked. Do they even come close to the number of failed investments by the government.
Really big cherrys
Look for the F-35 government initiative. 1.5 Trillion dollars spent, and the F-16 from the 70's is still superior.
Way to go public spending. It's a massive expense, that will still go on...
Mr. Folsom also wrote a book on this subject titled The Myth of the Robber Barons, I enjoyed it immensely.
The final phrase is goooood!
If governments want to accomplish something they should hold a contest, whoever gets the product we want built first and better gets a reward. That's a lot better than funding and wasting shit tons of money.
That's a better idea than just wasting it beforehand
the problem is building the product is what costs the money, they can't build the product if they don't have the money
+ECA The solution to the problem of initial cost is: private lenders.
Visda58 private lenders won't invest in things like space exploration that don't have high returns for a very long time
ECA The potential return in this hypothetical was prize money from the government.
Brazilian Santos Dumont flew with a plane first.
Love all your videos
an eye opener...thanks for the video
As we all know airplane building is better without the government. Luck that Boeing gets no tax payer money...
What? Boeing got 20 billion dollars in taxpayer money in 2017! From 2008 to 2017 Boeing paid an effective tax rate of 8%.
The thing is the government must invest in what they know will bring future progress such as solar power. these aren't immediately profitable so you cannot rely on the private sector to invest in things that aren't immediately profitable. the government has subsidised the production of the Internet, apple's and Microsoft's technological development and the change from using wood as fuel, to coal, to petroleum.
+Noah O I have to disagree in part. The govt could invest in unproven tech such a Nuclear Fusion. However, solar was already known to have "worked." It did not need any funding. What wasn't known was how to make it profitable. Only the private sector can do so. If they cannot then let solar die and let other more efficient sources be found.
Wonderful video. Great job.
Great vdo . Thank u
And that's why the interstate highway system was built without government funds kids.
Highways could be built privately, and our obsession with cars isn't productive
Never heard of the tragedy of the commons? You don't think that having the ability to move goods around the country is good for the economy? Some conservatives are common sense but I'm guessing you're not one of them.
Joe Kennedy You're reading way too much into my statement.
Eh, no mention of Louis and Clark, Hoover Dam or the Space race? All funded by the government. All pushed the boundaries of technology at the time.
The main crux of private industry is that it is all about generating capital; pushing boundaries is secondary. Government investment has it's place.
Lewis and Clark didn't push any boundaries that french fur trappers hadn't.
Hoover dam was a massive mistake, but yeah, using cooling pipes and leaving them in the concrete was a good idea.
Space race might have been funded by Gov, but that's because they didn't want competition from private corporations who could have done more with less.
look at the internet, or the space race. when Gov has a monopoly on usage and development they stifle innovation. in the early 90s when Gov sold it's interest in the internet we were sold new browsers and cheap access to it (or you might wish to use telnet and 56k, still); innovation came almost overnight. we now have Blue Origin, Space X, and Virgin Galactic doing in a decade what Nasa couldn't do in 50 yrs: making space travel commonplace and affordable. if the Gov got out of the way even more, we would have had our first commercial passenger space flight, by now.
Bloopilot The government broke the ground for all those independent investors.
There were no reliable maps for the interior of America before Lewis and Clark. The Hoover dam revolutionized concrete construction and the space race created a myriad of products and whole new industries. There was no market demand for these things and no investor had the capital or stomach to make these things happen.
It goes on today as well. Investments by the military create new products and new technologies. The initial research is astronomical, but many flow down to the private sector where they are able to be manufactured cheaply.
Does that mean the government should be aggressively investing? Probably no, but public works have their benefits.
+Unlucky Fat Guy The space race was awesome but it was way more expensive than it should have been. The same is true for military innovation. I am against government investment but sometimes sadly it is required.
Cool story bro. I genuinely enjoyed this one.
I like the way he discussed. Understandable 👏👏
The whole point of gov't investing is that its not necessarily profitable but its demanded by public policy. Things like public transportation and even roads could hardily survive without gov't investing.
+Jose Lasprilla Ignorance is certainly bliss.
+Jose Lasprilla I didn't realise that roads only existed after governments decided to build them?
+Jose Lasprilla - I'll tell you a story about that.
My city has just finished a $2 BILLION ring road section. It's loaded with problems. Overpasses were in the tens to hundreds of millions each, there are horrible frost heave issues (a sign of poor roadbed construction), the layout and design is poor (you can't get there from here), and only 2 years after opening there are clearly large sections that need to be rebuilt, some of the lighting is still being run by on-site diesel generators.
Meanwhile, near a new shopping mall a private company built a $1 million overpass 10 years ago that has zero deficiencies or issues and only took a few months to complete.
Unfortunately, governments have a monopoly on infrastructure, usually not allowing anyone else to do it. If developers were responsible for transportation in and out of the subdivisions they're building, there would be an actual incentive to do it right, and cost less. As long as there's some sort of oversight, I'd love to see an experiment on this.
+nevermind824 expensive roads like the romans didnt exist without heavy govt subsidy
+Geoff Allan i dont disagree that most of the time gov't makes terrible business decisions, like the new dc tram they been building but in some areas its sadly needed. Show me a private subway metro in the world that works without gov't subsidy.
BRILLIANT !
I read about Langley back in Middle School, and took a hint about government backed R&D.
Thank you professor
The fact maybe true for the USA, but Europe has a proven history of successful Government projects
+Warren Sherwen oh sure, like the berlin wall, or the NHS. or chernobyl.
+Warren Sherwen Yes there were some. But in the grand scheme of things, Europe is now broke as a result of spending other people's money.
no it hasn't. For example government funded projects for renewable energy sources pretty much failed all across Europe. Reason being that they are completely ineffective and couldn't compete on the free market without tons of taxpayers money wasted to fund them. Also branches where businesses that are partially owned by the government have a monopoly suck ass
+Warren Sherwen As european... You're full of shit.
Bart Bols Let me guess Finland, and sweden? Both literally in economic crisis currently.
This argument is right for some situations, but the flaw comes in the case of areas that aren't profitable. Education and health care are some of those areas that simply cannot reach everyone if they aren't run by the government. Capitalism works brilliantly for innovation, but when it comes to the sort of things that everyone needs, like medical care and education, we need to implement certain socialist policies in order to make them available to everyone, and that way we can get the benefit of both sides rather than have some ideological argument over which one is better when both clearly have their ups and downs.
More as we need to get the ball rolling with Capitalism and if we roll over difficults than introduce Socialist policies that have proven to be helpful.
see the obvious counter argument to you is that if the government stepped out of regulating and subsidising the Healthcare and education systems then people could afford it.
+Jon Deal that is not true. When it comes to health insurance, companies will make ridiculously high prices or refuse insurance to people deemed to be "high risk." The price will inevitably be set so that not everyone can afford health care, because people needs it and are therefore willing to spend a lot of money. The same idea comes with education, if it privatized and run by people desiring only money, then it becomes ridiculously expensive and the majority of people go into massive unforgivable debt because they need education.
+Michael Roll (MRolled) Public schools cost more per student per year than private schools, yet public schools somehow turn out kids that aren't very well educated. Private schools do a much better job at this; public schools are more about social engineering than teaching subject matter and skills. I can't think of a better example to show that government just needs to stay out of stuff. If public schools were done away with and the taxes to support them repealed, people could afford to send their kids to the superior private schools and still come out ahead financially.
***** Private Schools are good in theory, but not everybody could access them unlike American Public Schools I recall attending a Catholic School for Kindergarden, but the Cost was $10,000 per child and the Nuns & Monks that ran it treated it like an Abbey/Monastery enforcing religion into every aspect of our education plus it isolated me from non-Christian students that I meet in Elementary, Middle, and High School. The problem is that Private Schools are for profit instead of Public Schools which are created for anybody who tries their hardest to become successful to get their education. Lastly, you can't done away Public Education and Taxes that contribute to Public and force everybody to attend Private Schools when some can't afford it. What you should be saying is that their should be reform in Schools that matches those of Asian Countries and taxes should be invested wisely on the Schools' Teachers,Administrations, and Students instead of wasted on wants.
Cheers from Brazil and Santos Dummond
Very recommendable!
Can the same case be made for the Space Program back in the 60's? We did send a man to the moon in Government money. Does this mean that we could actually have gone sooner if the program was funded privately?
+hereLiesThisTroper I think maybe not sooner, but private companies now are the ones behind more efficient and repeatable space travel.
+hereLiesThisTroper There wasn't any incentive. Yeah, its cool we got to space, but with the technology at the time, and even now, space travel is just a really awesome way to waste a lot of money. Private companies looking into is are either doing it as a method of tourism, or as a genuine interest, or even as a way to look for ways to get a return on investment (colonies or mining).
good point. The US started a space race with the Soviet Union to prove that Capitalism was better than Socialism. seems that the Soviet project failed whereas the US succeeded in the end.
+hereLiesThisTroper Of course not, but these videos are so the right wing can have it's little eco chamber and have it's pre received ideas validated. The world is more complex than "this works and everybody else is stupid"
+Chris Parrish SpaceX is tremendously dependent on NASA.
4:46
>the first plane
*glinder
Yes, a hangglider thrown by a catapult in fact.
Santos Dumont really flown an airplane, in a field full of eyewitness, with proper recording and with zero government funds.
This video is gold!
It just occurred to me at the end the speaker was Burton Folsom, author of Empire Builders and Myth of the Robber Barons. No wonder the example of James J. Hill sounded so familiar. It's an example from his own book!
yeah just like space x is so much better at getting to space than nasa
Relax. They literally just opened space to the free market a few year ago. It will happen.
+Jeffery Downs difference is that NASA is limited in how much they can spend. and most of it goes to keeping the ISS stocked and doing experiments.
***** gotta give credit to SpaceX for being able to land a rocket booster. that will definitely lower costs of space travel by a longshot.
SpaceX is already a lot better than NASA. They were able to land a booster rocket on a barge, which will make space launches far cheaper.
*****
Do you have any idea how much those shuttles cost? They worked back in the day (except for the ones that blew up, RIP Challenger and Columbia) but they are obsolete now, especially in terms of cost.
And this is my argument as to why we should privatize infrastructure
Steez yes we should definitely privatise things such as roads, that always goes well....
This is brilliant!!!
That's why history knowledge is so important
This is why Bernie lost, doing everything with government money is a bad idea, same with giving people money they don't deserve.
2 examples does not make conclusive evidence. You didn't even try to make any arguments other than "look at these 2 points where i was right, therefore i'm right all the time!"
How many examples do you need?
+Andrew Cascio Well of course its talking about "outsourcing", because thats what government investment means, which if you bother to check under the video, is the entire topic of the video.
+Andrew Cawley I would rather have data to be honest, especially considering this is supposedly a 'university' #notauniversity
Andrew Cascio What part of 5 minute video did you not understand he needed to go in depth for each example in explaining his point whereas you will keep demanding examples do you even question your political or economical views when watching these videos I do, and I left Liberalism because of it, though some videos may be stupid and leave easy counter-arguments(Environmental Videos) I find them knowledgeable.
Andrew Cascio Define Investment and Subsidization? In your own words.
Hard to believe all these PragerU videos are still on RUclips !! Wonder how long that will last? I will just have to binge watch as many as possible before YT gets rid of them. Cannot believe that conservative, pro-market, pro-liberty videos would have a very long shelf life on YT !!
BEAUTIFULLY STATED 👍🏻
Finally. A good PragerU video.
While I agree with this concept 100%, is there any example of it working?
+Ray K98 The Interstate system...but it was designed and run by engineers and funded by special bonds through a managing trust. Given they had to expropriate lots of land in every state you couldn't do it any other way. But then the true success of the system was the completely private funded development of suburban America around the freeways.
+Ray K98 the only example i can think of of government investment working is china's government control of their utilities. but if china is an example to follow, then there is something seriously wrong with our goals.
What would that prove? If it worked, it could be because the people involved were knowledgeable, motivated, and possibly lucky. We would expect that some of the time. What really needs to be proved is that private successes can happen some of the time, because if it can, then why make the public take the losses if it'll eventually get done privately?
Education. The government invests in schools, the country gets good engineers and doctors.
Jeremy Downey but that doesn't actually directly produce anything of economic value, like train tickets and bread.
I Love this video, please post more videos like this
Very useful and insightfup
How do roads get built? By private companies paid by the government's collected tax dollars? Well ok then.
+Golden Rockefeller MUH ROAAAAAAAAAAAAAADS
+Golden Rockefeller public roads needs to be public precisely because of the freerider problem and the lack of exclusivity. No one is disputing this nimrod.
+Golden Rockefeller You realise the roads, bridges and post office argument is the worst one right?
Roads have been around since its conception during the times of the Roman Empire, most bridges in America today wasn't constructed by the government, and the post office wasn't even efficient or great until the company Federal Express, yes it is a private company was established and created, one day transport to two-three transport of mail or orders.
+Golden Rockefeller What's your point?
+Joshua Legge True, good point, there would be no roads to neglect.
How do you explain the Apollo missions?
+SuperNovaJinckUFO Apollo missions used 5-6% of the GDP of the whole of the USA. Yeah it worked but billions were spent (Trillions in today's money).
Now look at aeronautics. Missions are conducted by private companies. SpaceX has their reusable rocket.
They used an absolutely massive amount of money and took over a decade to achieve
Two words. Cold War
Great video it's so true
If we entrusted space travel in the hands of private enterprise during the space race,we'd already have space colonies.
Someone once asked a NASA administrator why they never developed rocket stages that would return to Earth like SpaceX has. His rather candid response was that NASA's stages were built in a powerful Congressman's district and wasting them meant continued employment in that district.
25,000 likes
1,200 Bernie supporters who don't like education
1,200 leftists, progressives, and socialists who don't know history, don't understand facts, and who don't like anything about America that isn't labeled, "made by the US government"!
1,200 FOOLS
1,200 IDIOTS AND MORONS
1,200 anti-Americans!
Was Titanic also subsidised and built by the government?
No it wasn't.... That's why Titanic had to hit an iceberg to go down...
If it was a socialist subsidised project it'd have gone down near Britain itself.
At the University of Illinois, a wall got run through by a truck. Of course it was University/state property, so it took builders a year to repair and rebuild it (with slow, steady work). Half a mile away, a car ran through a wall at the Jimmy John's I worked at. The building was privately owned and it was back up in three days.
Sounds about right. I watched some construction around here a while back. Across the street from each other were built a fire-hall and a liquor store. The Liquor store was open for business over a year before the fire hall was finished.
Great video
Thanks to the government, we won the space race
+yung jay jay Thanks to the government, we lost the space war. Just look at NASA today.
+yung jay jay Thanks to the government, 180 billion dollars (adjusted of inflation) of tax money was invested in the apollo program for little to no result for the american people.
+yung jay jay Congratulations the US government forced humanity to the moon when it didn't need to be done. There is barely now commercial interest to go to space.
Thanks to the government, NASA may never sent a probe to Jupiter's moon, Europa.
+TheNeomatix - Virtually our entire technological base is a result of the space program. Microcomputers, materials advancements, EVERY aspect of our civilization is better from it.
The internet is one the best examples of why Government investment works.
no its not
It's easy to cherry-pick examples to give the example you want to show. The USA's fruits from its oil boom were quickly frittered away, whereas Norway's state oil monopoly Statoil has generated enormous wealth, which has been invested in a sovereign wealth fund, which was at times valued at $200,000 per inhabitant.
Amazing video