Trying to force equality means you've got to hammer people down, and that means take away the freedom.
Tyranny, such as Haiti, also produce inequality, but without the prosperity.
Haiti wasn't a tyranny. In fact, it was a prime example of proprietarian capitalism run totally amok - a regime in which the state did not restrict individuals from, say, owning other humans and reaping large profits on them.
It does not include the right to harm others or enslave them. Enslaving people obviously prevents them from having the right to trade freely.
> Haiti wasn't a tyranny
Owning other people is tyrannical.
Except the numerous exceptions where that isn't true. I can't engage in insider trading. I can't get a child to give me his lunch money in exchange for a lollipop. I can't deal heroin. The point being that markets aren't absolutely free, they're free within the limits of what we deem to be culturally and politically acceptable. If you look at the logic surrounding the end of slavery in 19th century Europe, much of the debate was about the property rights of slaveholders and how they ought to be compensated for their lost property.
The private sector also comes in flavors like ULA, Lockheed Martin, or Boeing. Given that NASA was prevented from continuing their successful approach in favor of building what Congress wanted to steer money to major private companies, any explanation which focuses on the sector alone is guaranteed to be wrong. What matters is how the incentives are structured: giving money to a contractor to keep people employed in certain areas won’t yield successful launch systems the way paying for successful launches will.
(And, no, it’s not as simple as saying the root cause is government: those companies spend enormous amounts of money trying to influence the government so the relationship again is not that simple.)
> their successful approach
NASA successfully landed on the moon, which was a great accomplishment. What they did not do successfully was do it in a sustainable, cost-effective manner. Which is why NASA's budget was cut. An economy simply cannot consist of operations that are all losing money.
The space shuttle was unsustainable, too. Partly because the winged craft design was the result of politics rather than economic sense.
SpaceX, however, looks to be very much sustainable, and profitable. SpaceX has rebooted the entire space industry in the US.
They were sustainable in the sense that they kickstarted something the private market wasn't interested in doing at the time, and then made that knowledge available in a way that the private market could leverage and commercialize.
Same as the Internet. Companies didn't build the Internet, it got kickstarted outside of the market by the government and by researchers/universities, and then it was (partially) handed over to the market so it could be optimized.
In general, we don't try to get the government to be hyper-efficient. We try to get the government to fill in gaps that the market is unwilling to address, and to occasionally step in and regulate/subsidize the market when it goes off the rails. One of the biggest purposes of Capitalism is to use the market as an optimizer when possible.
But you're kind of jumping all over the place in these threads. I don't understand what this current debate you're having over government efficiency has to do with either inequality or Adam Smith. The original article's argument was that Capitalism does not require maximizing inequality, and that seeking to minimize inequality is not fundamentally incompatible with a Capitalist system. The debate over Socialism vs Capitalism has very little to do with that argument, the article doesn't even mention Socialism.
Companies built numerous networks, like Bix, Compuserve, Timenet, MCIMail, Prodigy, the RBBS system, etc.
The early internet also ran over the existing phone lines. Dedicated lines came later. That's why we used modems and dialup.
Highly regulated phone lines, and a market that exploded in innovation when the government stepped in and forced Bell Systems to allow 3rd-party devices and license their patents royalty-free. And the fact that other networks existed doesn't change anything about the fact that the modern Internet we have was largely built by researchers and government projects.
But you're still missing the point.
Who CARES who built the Internet? What does that have to do with whether or not Capitalism requires extreme levels of wealth inequality to function well? You keep on arguing about government vs companies, and that has nothing to do with the original article. You're still debating about Socialism on an article about Capitalism.
You can't have capitalism without wealth inequality. Larger levels of such inequality allows larger endeavors to be undertaken. Everybody equal under socialism doesn't produce much of any wealth.
First, nobody is talking about getting rid of all wealth inequality, but Adam Smith is questioning whether extreme wealth inequality benefits innovation and indicates a healthy economy. He makes a number of points about inequality, one of them being that the more efficient a market gets, the less profit margin individual products should generate (since they'll be priced efficiently at or near cost), and the harder it will be in an efficient market for any Capital owner to generate profits on what they build.
In general, whether extreme consolidation increases or decreases startup potential is not an absurd question to ask. I understand you have a particular philosophy about Capitalism that states that extreme wealth concentration is enabling opportunities, but that philosophy is not universally shared by every Capitalist, and you don't get to just say that's how it works just because.
Obviously Capitalism requires some inequality, and obviously Capitalism requires some equality and social mobility. You see this mirrored in the market itself; it's good for some companies to be more successful than others (that's how we know that the market is working) but almost all Capitalists outside of very narrow anachro-Capitalist sects also believe that monopolies (even natural monopolies) are bad for the market.
Second, just saying "you can't have Capitalism without wealth inequality" doesn't add anything to the conversation. It's the equivalent of just commenting under an article, "No, you're wrong."
The article argues that Adam Smith advocated against extreme wealth consolidation, it's describing his economic theories. Do you think the article is mischaracterizing Adam Smith? Do you want to point to any of Adam Smith's quotes in Wealth of Nations and explain why they're flawed? Do you want to explain what Adam Smith didn't realize about Capitalism? Or do you just want to keep repeating that he's wrong?
> Everybody equal under socialism
Again, this is totally irrelevant to what we're talking about, and I do not care about Socialism.
Neither was the government space program.
Besides, NASA has consistently been completely unable at making launches cost-effective. NASA failed at making reusable rockets. NASA simply retreated.
Compare the arcs of NASA's space shuttle with what SpaceX is accomplishing.