Comment by throwawaysea | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaysea | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This headline feels like it is written to generate outrage. It’s not that it’s inaccurate (since it’s factual), but rather that it invokes a feeling of bailing out the world’s richest man instead of focusing on the company and what capability they bring. Bernie Sanders is quoted in the article, also with the same spin: “It does not make a lot of sense to me that we would provide billions of dollars to a company owned by the wealthiest guy in America”.

This is about ensuring a healthy and competitive space technology ecosystem in the US. It’s about redundancy. It’s about not losing all the progress an organization like Blue Origin has made, since starting from zero will be more expensive. To me it seems prudent to make a $10B investment here, which is small when compared to other policy packages the Biden administration has proposed.

> It’s about not losing all the progress an organization like Blue Origin has made, since starting from zero will be more expensive.

Would Blue Origin lose all progress? Why is the assumption that Bezos would fold up shop and shred everything?

Yes, the headline is a bit provocative, but it's a valid criticism; as is the fact that the bailout was added by a Senator from the state that Blue Origin is based in, which makes it look like a much less altruistic move to ensure space exploration continues at a rapid pace, and more like a way to make sure her state gets a cut of the budget.

He is a billionaire. He can bail out good own company. No money from tax papers is needed.

If he is motivated by profit, he may sell or liquidate company as well.

I guarantee there were other articles on this topic posted elsewhere with a less provocative title, but they don't end up getting hits, here or elsewhere. C'est la vie.

I'd say what's more provocative than the title is the fact that one of the richest men on Earth gets bailed out with public money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com