Galileo -- Why?

[Adam Smith]

If you say that in economics, only quantifiable things exist....

I am saying that in economics people try to do this all the tijme, and a good economist knows there is no economic basis for it.

It doesn't matter much, because in the worst case, we'd have to replace loans with research grants.

But the Airbus loans were strictly for commercial products, no?

[Saint Marcus]

But the Airbus loans were strictly for commercial products, no?

Not sure...they also do other stuff.

Anyway, both sides use methods that go against free trade to support their own economies. The US isn't right, nor is the EU. They're both doing it way too much for economic powers that claim to be pro-free-market.

US
EU

[Roland]

Airbus loans and guarantees got the company started, and are also granted to develop the A380. I don't know how the A400 deals are structured.

[DanS]

"Well, find me a topic where the US is right..."

That's an easy answer, professor. You're in a thread devoted to one instance.

One of the things that really crushes my nuts is that specific technologies are targeted. It's almost like some Euro politician sits around thinking "what technology market that has finally taken off can I screw up today?"

[Roland]

"You're in a thread devoted to one instance."

Funny, I thought GP made a general point....

"One of the things that really crushes my nuts is that specific technologies are targeted."

The US government is targetting key technologies for state funding. Veryone with the money and the know-how is.

"what technology market that has finally taken off can I screw up today?"

You still haven't defined "screw up". I assume every field where the US has no monopoly is "screwed up" for you ?

[DanS]

"I assume every field where the US has no monopoly is "screwed up" for you ?"

Oh get real. Why even say something like this when you know it not to be true?

None of the markets in which I deal (pesticides, consumer electronics, computer peripherals) even remotely resemble a US monopoly. The US doesn't have a monopoly in GPS equipment. Indeed, the Japanese dominate, with the US a respectable second.

"Veryone with the money and the know-how is."

This isn't true. By and large, the US targets very general technology markets, not specific ones. For instance, rapid ammortization of R&D benefits all technology players irrespective of market. This is good. If the government said that it would quicken ammortization for GPS equipment makers specifically, that would be bad.

edit: Also, I have no problem with people developing new tech on the government's dime. It's hard enough as it is. But this isn't new tech. It represents no innovation. Rather, it's an attempt to steal a market position off of the innovation of others.

Do you honestly think that innovation is served by Galileo?

[Saint Marcus]

Galileo doesn't only have a commercial reason, but there are political/security reasons as well. The EU doesn't want to be too dependent on the US, so therefor they want to move away from GPS. Since the Russian equivalent isn't really an alternative, a new system has to be build. And since the private sector isn't likely to do this alone, the governements have to help out. Might be unfair looking at the commercial application, but is very fair when looking at the security issues.

[Roland]

"Why even say something like this when you know it not to be true?"

In the hope that you will finally explain what gets screwed up how.

"The US doesn't have a monopoly in GPS equipment."

But on the system.

"This isn't true. By and large, the US targets very general technology markets, not specific ones."

What is US government research spending ? 30-50 billion $ from the Pentagon alone ? And this is not going to "specific" projects ?

"But this isn't new tech. It represents no innovation."

What makes you so sure of that ?

"Rather, it's an attempt to steal a market position off of the innovation of others."

Maybe, maybe not. What's next ? Europe shall build no satellites, because it's old russian... oh, wait, mostly german.... tech ? What's so bad about two systems ?

[DanS]

"In the hope that you will finally explain what gets screwed up how."

It's pretty simple. Technology companies need to be able to make decisions on innovation without a cap on the payoff. Governments do not follow the rules of the market, rather politics, so it introduces a lot of uncertainty into the innovation process and makes much innovation not worthwhile.

"But on the system."

Hasn't stopped the Japanese.

"What is US government research spending ? 30-50 billion $ from the Pentagon alone ? And this is not going to "specific" projects ?"

See AS's argument above.

"What makes you so sure of that ?"

OK, show me that it does represent innovation.

"Europe shall build no satellites, because it's old russian... oh, wait, mostly german.... tech ? What's so bad about two systems ?"

We stole the German scientists fair and square and put massive amounts of money into it ourselves.

And why would Europe subsidize specific commercial satellite projects that replicate services already provided? It's anti-competitive.

[KrazyHorse]

Dan, I hadn't even thought of the economic implications of the system when I started to suggest possible national (ahem-regional) security reasons for it.

Can you honestly tell me that if the EU had the only set of GPS satellites, the US wouldn't put up its own system for military reasons?

[DanS]

KH: In short, I don't know, since it's impossible to put the US in Europe's shoes. The US has the political will to spend $400 billion+ on defense and the tools we use are mainly to project power (air, sea). But it's a fair hypothetical and a couple of factors stick in my mind.

The US is bound to Europe by the NATO alliance. Unless Europe/Canada anticipate an erosion of this alliance, they don't have to worry about anything for now.

So this brings up the question of timing. An alternative system could be built by Europe at any time they feel threatened, within a fairly tight timeframe. Looked at another way, any military Euro spent on Galileo should be weighed against potentially important military innovation or reform (opportunity cost).

Europe, ex-Britain, doesn't really have uses for the military tech in 2008. The military budgets are relatively small, and not geared toward tech introduction. But even if Europe did have large tech-heavy budgets, it might not pursue this technology due to different military doctrines than the US.

Lastly, if Europe were looking out for its own security, it might spend that $3 billion to innovate GPS tech within within its military doctrine. The US has already done a lot of this, as can be seen by extensive use of GPS in aircraft and the like. Maybe Europe would come up with a completely different set of GPS tools.

[KrazyHorse]

One post
Two post
Red post
Blue post

dp

[KrazyHorse]

a) France (IIRC, the biggest military spender in the EU) is not in NATO. France is also the strongest EU-member wrt the aerospace industry.

b) I honestly see NATO dissolving (or at least weakening) over the next few decades. It might be a friendly departure, but the reason for its existence no longer exists. Europe seems to be attempting to reassert itself militarily, the US seems tired with having to explain itself to soft Europeans when it's the world's unquestioned superpower. You're left with a polarisation of the NATO partners, and without a serious outside threat to maintain cohesiveness people will just get fed up.

[faded glory]

Come on guys not another flag war


Honestly it doesnt matter. Whats the big deal? Why the opposition? What if Europe was to say we werent allowed to duplicate an idea of theres?


GPS works. It is the best and only in the world. Tho my opinion of galileo (and I knew about before this thread) is that if it can be more accurate ; great. As long as europe doesnt FORCE airplanes and ships entering there waters to use it,instead of GPS.

[Saint Marcus]

point is not that we feel "threathened" by the US, but that we want to become less dependent on the US. That's the main reason this is being pushed forward by, mainly, the French (along with others). NATO is all good and well, but we don't want to become American "vassals" (as said by several european politicians).

Also, a unified european system will aid in the unification proces of Europe. If we want to become a world player, we should minimize our relience on foreign facilities and equipment. We should build our own systems and build our own facilities and equipment. That was the whole point of the Eurofighter, Airbus, etc. and now Galileo. What would be the point of European nations working together, if we all just run to the US for our aircraft, guns, GPS systems, etc?

Plus, Europeans may have a need for a more accurate GPS system. Right now, only the US military can use the accurate GPS, while the rest, including the Europeans, are stuck with less accurate GPS. Since it's unlikely the US will allow us to use the same system as the US military, we have little choice but to build our own.

Unless Europe/Canada anticipate an erosion of this alliance, they don't have to worry about anything for now.

We do. At this rate, NATO will be finished before Galileo will be put in service.

And why would Europe subsidize specific commercial satellite projects that replicate services already provided?

See above. Galileo is more accurate than GPS. Those accurate services are only provided to the American military, not the Europeans.