I am not necessarily a fan of monopolies, but I think we owe it to ourselves to understand the tradeoffs and consider alternatives. E.g. how do you do basic research if there is so aggressive competition and shareholder look only 3 months ahead.

It is also worth nothing that the case of ULA isn't necessarily a case of merely monopoly but also how how that monopoly works. E.g. being a monopoly shouldn't require a cost plus contract. Secondly GM and the other big three are certainly not monopolies but have not proven any more capable than ULA in competing with Tesla in creating an electric car.

SpaceX is beating lots of other rocket companies which aren't necessarily monopolies. I think it is easy to overstate how bad ULA is when perhaps it is really about how good SpaceX is ;-)

Also remember the Russians also operated government monopolies for rocket building and yet managed to build considerably cheaper rockets than the Americans. I think there is a lot more to this issue than whether it is prive/public or a monopoly.

I.e. both of which provided by a de-facto ultimate monopoly which can afford "luxuries" like basic research because they don't have to worry it won't pay off next quarter.

> (...) and venture capital.

I want to see VC-sponsored ambitious research projects. VC-money-induced thinking is very short term.

Isn't that exactly what YC research is?