Incorrect. Especially with the space exploration costs involved. The costs are a mere drop in the ocean compared to the scope of the social problems author tries to imply could be solvable with that money. a half of a percent will not make a difference to them but can bring benefits to all and increase our understanding everything which surrounds us
For a given level of taxation revenue, government spending on one area necessarily comes at the expense of another.
this is not true either with government budget being far from 1+1 = 2 - 3 = -1
This is a simplistic view of the economy and how money actually operates in the complex system which is a big western country. Huge things like a war of course require things to come at expense of another but unfortunately in every country science is sidetracked to such a low level that even if remove all the funding and deliver that money to feed children, not a single child will receive an extra meal, or extra vaccine shot (which are also a result of investment in science either by government or private citizens).
The issues are not a result of lacks of money, are not a result of sending a robot car to mars. they are results of lack of commitments, and ideas how to fix things. if things were easily solvable and people wanted to fix them money would have been found and NASA and other space agencies would not lose a single cent.
People like Musk can only emerge in a politico-economic environment that is unconcerned with an equitable distribution of resources.
even if that was true is he at fault here? did he gain his money through poisoning poor people or other nefarious activities?
cause as far as i know he made the money fair by providing products and services people found desirable and with stuff like electric car potentially saving the planet.
he probably did some assholeish things in his life but making him a problem because he does not try to stop people from hating people who have different bone structure and level of pigment in their skin is unfair and has nothing to do with equal distribution of the resources.
We last saw Musk’s ilk – supposedly visionary giants like the Carnegies, Rockerfellers, and so forth – in the American Gilded Age of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They disappeared in the middle part of the 20th century because western nations adopted economic policies designed to serve the general welfare, policies that have been undermined since the neoliberal revolution inaugurated by Thatcher and Reagan, which has produced a new generation of figures of grotesque wealth while the welfare of the majority falters and backslides.
and we last saw ‘equitable distribution’ being said in 1990s in my country. when we tried to stop making everyone equal which ended up with making everyone poor. it tries to creep back in and destroy 17 years of progress with populist Party in control but it aint here nor there.
There is no demonstrated evidence how Musks ideas are hurting the world. The articles argument that he is not doing enough to solve problems which are out of scope (getting to mars is easier than solving racism) is childish. We can’t have faith nor can demand from billionaires to fix our shit.