Mainan_Tagonist

I will be curious to read it once published.

Humm, honest question, why did the royals from the Norman conquest on start speaking french?

I guess the Normans while not being "ethnically" Frank or Gallic at the time, had already been absorbed into "Frank Culture". They were also loose vassals to the king of France at the time as I recollect.

"Ah, l'Angleterre, cette colonie française qui a mal tourné." - G. Clémenceau

--Edited for clarity

Technologically speaking, Starlink is the way to go.

Economically, Starlink and its subscription model cannot compete with a hardware cost only mean of communication where all elements are modular in this particular context.

On the other hand, even people in remote communities will also end up getting hold of a cheap smartphone that they would like to connect to the internet

Very interesting that the setup uses a mag loop for antenna.

or perhaps she was just a toxic colleague, with tons of experience in a narrow field that he did not have and making colleagues leave was just her thing.

Vote me down all you want, women are just as capable as men in every way, including the wrong, toxic ones

then again, how good a manager would she have made if she was bossing around colleagues to the point of them quitting?

Management is not just about qualification, it's also about the human aspect.

I have seen enough toxic femineity at work to say it is actually a thing, on par with toxic masculinity.

if anything it is THE natural monopoly

For the record, the full quote is : * think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and [end p29] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look! It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”*

Just putting this here for clarity.

On the topic of economic development, David Landes is worth reading, both the Unbound Prometheus and The Wealth and Poverty of Nations provide a solid understanding of the reasons behind the development of Western Europe over the past 500 years.

The 5 Dragons (Taiwan, South Korea, HK, Singapore, Japan) followed pretty much the same recipes that made Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland industrial powerhouses in their days.

no, that's not what i'm doing, just the opposite.

OP argued that investment is lead by short term thinking, yet i point out example of long term thinking and risk taking by investors.

Indeed, if these are loss making operations, who puts the capital for those rockets to get off the ground? and why are they putting their capital in this when instead they could have a "nice ETF bringing 10% yearly"?

That's exactly my point, those are run by private equity, investors willing to take the risks and wait the big payday out.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are also investors that are long on an investment and willing take losses for a long time before the big pay off materialises, or not. But that's private equity investment rather than stock market logic. Capitalism can also be about the mid-long term profits, given the proper opportunity.

Musk did not go it alone in the SpaceX venture, he obviously had other investors joining in on the risks and potential losses.

As for the government giving private capital public funds, no, that's obviously not what i'm arguing for, even though that's pretty much how the US has been running since WW2. The military industrial complex did not rise up as a normal capitalistic venture.

I am as appalled as anyone by the divestments in healthcare, education and such in the US, but the moral underpinnings and fundaments of the United States and its history, the puritanical element in particular, lead me to think that this is going to remain a long term issue in this country.

The stock market works that way, it's true.

But what about SpaceX, Blue Origin... there are also counter examples that show it is possible for investors to wait out the big profits.